[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

Would you do this Jamal trade?
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 3 of 4 ‹ Previous 1  2  3  4 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
codeunknown
Posts: 22615
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 7/14/2004
Member: #704
2/2/2006  12:06 PM
The point is to get *roster* space, not cap space

Realistically, this is retarded. Essentially, you're advocating lesser returns on a trade for an extra roster spot in 06? Keep in mind, AD and Penny should be off the books, barring another blunder at the deadline, anyway - there's 2 spots already. And you're suggesting that a 3rd spot is worth surrendering Crawford for a do-rag and a Vanilla Ice CD? Name me 3 MLE and under free agents you would rather have over Crawford in 06. And remember, we can always cut Taylor (gasp) if need be.
Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
AUTOADVERT
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
2/2/2006  12:21 PM
You're making too many assumptions about what will be done with AD, Penny, maybe Mo for me to keep with you
codeunknown
Posts: 22615
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 7/14/2004
Member: #704
2/2/2006  12:30 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:

You're making too many assumptions about what will be done with AD, Penny, maybe Mo for me to keep with you

The only assumption made is that they will not be traded - an assumption, of course, that I hope comes true. Taylor aside, there should be 2 roster spots available next year. In my estimation, you should be able follow that.
Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
2/2/2006  12:38 PM
Posted by codeunknown:



Name me 3 MLE and under free agents you would rather have over Crawford in 06. And remember, we can always cut Taylor (gasp) if need be.

Bonzi Wells
Sam Cassell
Fred Jones (restricted but Indy likely won't match due to lux tax)



[Edited by - McK1 on 02-02-2006 12:38 PM]
the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
2/2/2006  12:39 PM
Posted by codeunknown:
Posted by Bonn1997:

You're making too many assumptions about what will be done with AD, Penny, maybe Mo for me to keep with you

The only assumption made is that they will not be traded - an assumption, of course, that I hope comes true. Taylor aside, there should be 2 roster spots available next year. In my estimation, you should be able follow that.
If that were how expiring contracts had ever been handled in Dolan's years here, it would be worth addressing. There would be some reasonable basis for the assumption.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
2/2/2006  12:40 PM
Posted by McK1:
Posted by codeunknown:



Name me 3 MLE and under free agents you would rather have over Crawford in 06. And remember, we can always cut Taylor (gasp) if need be.

Bonzi Wells
Sam Cassell
Fred Jones (restricted but Indy likely won't match due to lux tax)



[Edited by - McK1 on 02-02-2006 12:38 PM]

Mike James too. I haven't looked at the list, but if the player tries hard on both ends of the court and isn't as soft as a fluffy pillow, I'd rather have them. That probably amounts to the majority of FAs. I've already said I prefer having another Jackie Butler instead of Crawford so you can get an idea of how much I value Jamal's low effort, inconsistency, and softness.


[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 02-02-2006 12:41 PM]
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
2/2/2006  12:42 PM
again, if you can get a future 1st round pick along w/Kandi's contract, i make that deal w/the idea that you'll sign Mike James w/the MLE in the offseason... but you can't give away a young talent for just an expiring deal w/o any assurance that you'll get any sort of value in the deal... the pick is essential, otherwise, no deal.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
codeunknown
Posts: 22615
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 7/14/2004
Member: #704
2/2/2006  12:56 PM
Posted by McK1:
Posted by codeunknown:



Name me 3 MLE and under free agents you would rather have over Crawford in 06. And remember, we can always cut Taylor (gasp) if need be.



Bonzi Wells
Sam Cassell
Fred Jones (restricted but Indy likely won't match due to lux tax)



[Edited by - McK1 on 02-02-2006 12:38 PM]

Wells and Cassell will each sign for the MLE - Wells may even sign for slightly more. Naturally, we have only 1 mid level exception. Which means we are left offerring coupons to whoever else. As a result, even in the best case scenario, we are not in a position to get more than 1 of those players - Fred Jones will not sign for the minimum. Again, this is a poor list - in terms of attainability, even getting one of those players is highly unlikely. To justify trading Crawford, we need to get 3.

Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
2/2/2006  1:08 PM
Posted by codeunknown:
Posted by McK1:
Posted by codeunknown:



Name me 3 MLE and under free agents you would rather have over Crawford in 06. And remember, we can always cut Taylor (gasp) if need be.



Bonzi Wells
Sam Cassell
Fred Jones (restricted but Indy likely won't match due to lux tax)



[Edited by - McK1 on 02-02-2006 12:38 PM]

Wells and Cassell will each sign for the MLE - Wells may even sign for slightly more. Naturally, we have only 1 mid level exception. Which means we are left offerring coupons to whoever else. As a result, even in the best case scenario, we are not in a position to get more than 1 of those players - Fred Jones will not sign for the minimum. Again, this is a poor list - in terms of attainability, even getting one of those players is highly unlikely. To justify trading Crawford, we need to get 3.

We only need 1 of those players. Each are better ballplayers than Crawford and would make NY a much better perimeter team. None will command more than the mid. Losing Jamal and gaining a Cassell or a Wells or a Jones would be a coup
the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
codeunknown
Posts: 22615
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 7/14/2004
Member: #704
2/2/2006  1:13 PM
If that were how expiring contracts had ever been handled in Dolan's years here, it would be worth addressing. There would be some reasonable basis for the assumption.

The basis for the assumption is that Dolan will at some point cut his losses for a team that misses the playoffs by 15 games. You know, save an extra 20 million.
Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
codeunknown
Posts: 22615
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 7/14/2004
Member: #704
2/2/2006  1:22 PM

We only need 1 of those players. Each are better ballplayers than Crawford and would make NY a much better perimeter team. None will command more than the mid. Losing Jamal and gaining a Cassell or a Wells or a Jones would be a coup


You're missing the point. We don't need to get rid of Crawford to sign one of those players - even if they are attainable as you suggest. There should be 2 roster spots available next year.

Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
2/2/2006  1:51 PM
Posted by codeunknown:
If that were how expiring contracts had ever been handled in Dolan's years here, it would be worth addressing. There would be some reasonable basis for the assumption.

The basis for the assumption is that Dolan will at some point cut his losses for a team that misses the playoffs by 15 games. You know, save an extra 20 million.
Dolan's never looked at it that way in the past. He'd rather have new players here (even if they have longer contracts), sell those players jerseys, hope those new, better players can bring the team to the playoffs and sell more tickets. I'm not saying he won't change things this year, just saying it would be unprecedented.
codeunknown
Posts: 22615
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 7/14/2004
Member: #704
2/2/2006  2:11 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by codeunknown:
If that were how expiring contracts had ever been handled in Dolan's years here, it would be worth addressing. There would be some reasonable basis for the assumption.

The basis for the assumption is that Dolan will at some point cut his losses for a team that misses the playoffs by 15 games. You know, save an extra 20 million.
Dolan's never looked at it that way in the past. He'd rather have new players here (even if they have longer contracts), sell those players jerseys, hope those new, better players can bring the team to the playoffs and sell more tickets. I'm not saying he won't change things this year, just saying it would be unprecedented.

Expiring contracts alone have netted us only Crawford. The Marbury and Curry deals required multiple first and second round picks. And Curry was only available because of a suspected genetic heart abnormality and shoddy defense. Those would be the precedents we have to work with.

You know, judging by the past 5 years, winning would be unprecedented. A toast to new precedents then?
Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
2/2/2006  2:12 PM
Posted by codeunknown:
We only need 1 of those players. Each are better ballplayers than Crawford and would make NY a much better perimeter team. None will command more than the mid. Losing Jamal and gaining a Cassell or a Wells or a Jones would be a coup


You're missing the point. We don't need to get rid of Crawford to sign one of those players - even if they are attainable as you suggest. There should be 2 roster spots available next year.

he acquistion of another wing player would likely leave little to no minutes left for Jamal. At 7 mil per thru 2010, it wouldn't be worth it having him on the roster.
the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
codeunknown
Posts: 22615
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 7/14/2004
Member: #704
2/2/2006  2:25 PM
he acquistion of another wing player would likely leave little to no minutes left for Jamal. At 7 mil per thru 2010, it wouldn't be worth it having him on the roster.

It wouldn't be worth it trading Crawford prematurely. Its not wise policy to trade players before you attain their replacements. Its even more unwise to dump an asset whose value is set to appreciate. Of course, I also think that there are many flaws with each of the players you listed - Cassell is by no means a long-term investment and a backcourt of Cassell and Marbury spells defensive disaster even worse than the current state. Wells plays small forward, will sign for more than the MLE in my opinion, and shouldn't displace Crawford's minutes significantly. Jones is not available for the minimum.
Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
2/2/2006  2:43 PM
Wells has played the 2 and the 3 in all his stops. He was the starting 2 in Portland when they were a powerhouse and starts 2 now in Sac.

Nothing about Crawford suggests his value will appreciate. He is not a smart bball player nor is he a natural defender. He has no true position. His contractual value vs his effect on the win column are grossly disproportionate.
the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
2/2/2006  2:52 PM
Its not wise policy to trade players before you attain their replacements.
I disagree. Look at how the Suns traded Marbury and Hardaway not knowing what they could replace him with. My view is that keeping Crawford is keeping a problem. You don't need a setup replacement to know that it's good to get rid of a problem.
Its even more unwise to dump an asset whose value is set to appreciate.
Set to appreciate? Based on what? Maybe year seven will be a charm?
codeunknown
Posts: 22615
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 7/14/2004
Member: #704
2/2/2006  3:27 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Its not wise policy to trade players before you attain their replacements.
I disagree. Look at how the Suns traded Marbury and Hardaway not knowing what they could replace him with. My view is that keeping Crawford is keeping a problem. You don't need a setup replacement to know that it's good to get rid of a problem.
Its even more unwise to dump an asset whose value is set to appreciate.
Set to appreciate? Based on what? Maybe year seven will be a charm?


Set to appreciate based on the fact that his stock can't get much lower. Based on Larry's track record of improving his players. Based on Crawford's improvement in shot selection. Based on a more determined role in the offense by next year. Based on a team which will win more next year.

In terms of trading players before you get their replacements, you better make sure you're getting something back. There has to be an alternative in case that player can't be replaced. The Phoenix example is an example of an ideal scenrio - but, even if Nash doesn't sign, they had cap space for coming years, 2 1st rounders and 2 second rounders. Trading Crawford for a crap player with an expiring contract is an option that remains available next year - if you're hell bent on doing so. The point is trading him next year is likely to yield better player, picks etc.
Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
codeunknown
Posts: 22615
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 7/14/2004
Member: #704
2/2/2006  3:36 PM
Posted by McK1:

Wells has played the 2 and the 3 in all his stops. He was the starting 2 in Portland when they were a powerhouse and starts 2 now in Sac.

Nothing about Crawford suggests his value will appreciate. He is not a smart bball player nor is he a natural defender. He has no true position. His contractual value vs his effect on the win column are grossly disproportionate.

Actually, many factors suggest that his value will appreciate. Crawford's value can't get any lower. Trading him next summer when he has less years on his deal and is likely a better ball player, I'd say would help his value. He's already shown improvement in shot selection. He plays a confused role on offense now - an issue which is likely to be resolved by next year when we field a more consistent lineup. The team as a whole is likely to win more next year - a factor that also helps his value. I think thats a mountain of evidence against you.

I feel like you're arguing in a theoretical vacuum - do you really think Wells is coming to New York - Sacramento will keep him for the MLE in the off chance goes for that low. And if he indeed makes his way here, the option to start him at the 3 keeps Crawford playing significant minutes. Regardless, trading Crawford because Wells, of all people, might take away his minutes, is absurd.

Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
Erniecat
Posts: 20577
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2005
Member: #851
2/2/2006  5:56 PM
This entire thread is mute. No one wants Crawford, who's still owed around $43 million over five years after this season. If you're an owner or GM (not named Dolan or Thomas), would you want that contract? I think not.
Page 3 of 4 ‹ Previous 1  2  3  4 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Would you do this Jamal trade?
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy