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

Trade down is the best deal for the Knicks
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 3 of 4 ‹ Previous 1  2  3  4 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
4/24/2008  8:33 AM
Posted by bitty41:

No not at all but Randolph like any trades that are made from this point forward should be about making this team better. I don't see how trading Randolph for another guy whose making 10 million except he has no skills or is constantly injured is going to make this team better. I don't know if your suggesting that we put everything on hold until 2011 and then try to make this team competetive?

Thats kinda of silly to try to unload any and everyone with a contract that extends beyond to 2011. Like I said teams will most likely only be interested in trading scrubs that are making big money.

Getting rid of Randolph is addition by subtraction, as it gets rid of his negative influence and will allow other players including whoever we draft to have freedom on offense. From my perspective, this helps both now and in 2010/11. I know you think keeping him here will help the team. I don't. There's really no point in arguing again over that. We did that all year!
AUTOADVERT
Panos
Posts: 30583
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 1/6/2004
Member: #520
4/24/2008  8:47 AM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by bitty41:

No not at all but Randolph like any trades that are made from this point forward should be about making this team better. I don't see how trading Randolph for another guy whose making 10 million except he has no skills or is constantly injured is going to make this team better. I don't know if your suggesting that we put everything on hold until 2011 and then try to make this team competetive?

Thats kinda of silly to try to unload any and everyone with a contract that extends beyond to 2011. Like I said teams will most likely only be interested in trading scrubs that are making big money.

Getting rid of Randolph is addition by subtraction, as it gets rid of his negative influence and will allow other players including whoever we draft to have freedom on offense. From my perspective, this helps both now and in 2010/11. I know you think keeping him here will help the team. I don't. There's really no point in arguing again over that. We did that all year!


I think it would be more like multiplication by division.


[Edited by - panos on 24-04-2008 08:49 AM]
TheGame
Posts: 26652
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/15/2006
Member: #1154
USA
4/24/2008  8:52 AM
IMO there is a potential star availabe at the 5 spot. My primary concern is whether we can make the right choice as to who to pick. I would not use the pick to get rid of Randolph. We might need Randolph because it is likely we will need to trade Lee. If Mayo or Bayless are on the board at 5, then I think those two are locks to be at least solid starters if not stars. The other prospects are riskier, but I would take a Lopez or someone else at 5 rather than trade the pick.
Trust the Process
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
4/24/2008  9:30 AM
If we were pick 6[the statistically highest probability] I would seriously consider a package from the Nets that included picks 10 21 and 40

Just for example


10 Mcgee Randolph or Westbrook

21 Collison or Augstin PG

40 JR Giddens DJ White Joey Dorsey Demarucs Nelson

I think the overall package would help the team [if executed right] better than 1 pick @ 6 where a team would want Eric Gordon[who we do not need] so we could conceivably get a player we really want[sans being top 5] AND pick up 2 additional picks--1 for a PG 1 for a player who slips out of round 1 at 40.
RIP Crushalot😞
franco12
Posts: 34069
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 2/19/2004
Member: #599
USA
4/24/2008  9:39 AM
Posted by BRIGGS:

If we were pick 6[the statistically highest probability] I would seriously consider a package from the Nets that included picks 10 21 and 40

Just for example


10 Mcgee Randolph or Westbrook

21 Collison or Augstin PG

40 JR Giddens DJ White Joey Dorsey Demarucs Nelson

I think the overall package would help the team [if executed right] better than 1 pick @ 6 where a team would want Eric Gordon[who we do not need] so we could conceivably get a player we really want[sans being top 5] AND pick up 2 additional picks--1 for a PG 1 for a player who slips out of round 1 at 40.

Although we have lots of needs - and I agree with you on possibly moving Lee- we have lots of 'great' role players. We lack a superstar.

Although the top talent might be weak in this draft- are we better able to get an all star talent at 6 or 10 & 21?
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
4/24/2008  9:44 AM
Posted by franco12:
Posted by BRIGGS:

If we were pick 6[the statistically highest probability] I would seriously consider a package from the Nets that included picks 10 21 and 40

Just for example


10 Mcgee Randolph or Westbrook

21 Collison or Augstin PG

40 JR Giddens DJ White Joey Dorsey Demarucs Nelson

I think the overall package would help the team [if executed right] better than 1 pick @ 6 where a team would want Eric Gordon[who we do not need] so we could conceivably get a player we really want[sans being top 5] AND pick up 2 additional picks--1 for a PG 1 for a player who slips out of round 1 at 40.

Although we have lots of needs - and I agree with you on possibly moving Lee- we have lots of 'great' role players. We lack a superstar.

Although the top talent might be weak in this draft- are we better able to get an all star talent at 6 or 10 & 21?
We're probably highly unlikely to get a superstar at any of those spots. Maybe we should be trying to get as many young, 2 way players as possible now in order to make this place appealing to FAs in 2010/11.
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
4/24/2008  9:56 AM
Posted by fishmike:
Posted by King1:

Mayo but I think he can be a little selfish and is somewhat of a risk.
I would not trade down if Mayo is on the board. I believe we can get the kind of role players King is talking about with expiring contracts and cash. Offer guys like Malik or Marbury to teams for a guy with 2 years left and a pick. Or just offer a team a guy like Balkman + $3mm for a pick in the 20s, or just cash. Those deals and trades happen in abundance every draft.

I agree, passing on mayo and bayless is a hard thing to do, both guys have loads of talent and upside...

Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
Panos
Posts: 30583
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 1/6/2004
Member: #520
4/24/2008  10:09 AM
O. J. Ma-yo. Clap clap, clap clap clap.
franco12
Posts: 34069
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 2/19/2004
Member: #599
USA
4/24/2008  10:11 AM
Posted by tkf:
Posted by fishmike:
Posted by King1:

Mayo but I think he can be a little selfish and is somewhat of a risk.
I would not trade down if Mayo is on the board. I believe we can get the kind of role players King is talking about with expiring contracts and cash. Offer guys like Malik or Marbury to teams for a guy with 2 years left and a pick. Or just offer a team a guy like Balkman + $3mm for a pick in the 20s, or just cash. Those deals and trades happen in abundance every draft.

I agree, passing on mayo and bayless is a hard thing to do, both guys have loads of talent and upside...

If only we had picked Bynum instead of Frye- you could have said, yea, Bynum is a risk and might not do anything. But we need upside. We need to stop thinking that in 2010 some savior (LBJ) is coming.
King1
Posts: 22993
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/2/2005
Member: #998
USA
4/24/2008  10:16 AM
You need to get money free and if you could slide late lottery to get rid of a career loser and bad team player that makes 15 million a year you do it. Hell Portland traded a 20/10 player and became better and we became worse. If your playing to win now you sign Lee and keep the lottery pick. If your playing for 2011 trade Lee and trade down to get rid of a contract.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
4/24/2008  10:31 AM
Posted by franco12:
Posted by tkf:
Posted by fishmike:
Posted by King1:

Mayo but I think he can be a little selfish and is somewhat of a risk.
I would not trade down if Mayo is on the board. I believe we can get the kind of role players King is talking about with expiring contracts and cash. Offer guys like Malik or Marbury to teams for a guy with 2 years left and a pick. Or just offer a team a guy like Balkman + $3mm for a pick in the 20s, or just cash. Those deals and trades happen in abundance every draft.

I agree, passing on mayo and bayless is a hard thing to do, both guys have loads of talent and upside...

If only we had picked Bynum instead of Frye- you could have said, yea, Bynum is a risk and might not do anything. But we need upside. We need to stop thinking that in 2010 some savior (LBJ) is coming.

It doesn't have to be a savior. But there are many excellent FAs in 2010/11--I posted a list of at least ten players who are all better than anything we've ever gotten through the re-tooling approach of this decade. And I refuse to believe that not one of them would sign here.
BoDid
Posts: 20043
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/17/2006
Member: #1114
China
4/24/2008  11:15 AM
Originally posted by King1:

You need to get money free and if you could slide late lottery to get rid of a career loser and bad team player that makes 15 million a year you do it. Hell Portland traded a 20/10 player and became better and we became worse. If your playing to win now you sign Lee and keep the lottery pick. If your playing for 2011 trade Lee and trade down to get rid of a contract.
Except that Portland already had a core of high draft picks on their roster (after great drafting in 2006) -- Aldridge and Oden, with Brandon Roy to orchestrate.
We have Lee and Curry, and Marbury.
Somehow just not the same.
So they could afford to dump a huge salary, questionable character, 20/10 guy.
We dump Zach and things are just not set to bloom.
Even Travis Outlaw is a better SF than any of our handful.
And I'd like sure to have the defensive presence and grit of Jarrett Jack (hoping we can get him).

You're proposing a salary dump and trading down in the draft in hopes of some maybe FA in a couple years.
Fanciful thinking.
I'd rather aim to pick a starter, hopefully a future star, in the upcoming draft.
Worry about moving Curry and Zach another day, in another way.
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
4/24/2008  11:21 AM
Posted by BoDid:
Originally posted by King1:

You need to get money free and if you could slide late lottery to get rid of a career loser and bad team player that makes 15 million a year you do it. Hell Portland traded a 20/10 player and became better and we became worse. If your playing to win now you sign Lee and keep the lottery pick. If your playing for 2011 trade Lee and trade down to get rid of a contract.
Except that Portland already had a core of high draft picks on their roster (after great drafting in 2006) -- Aldridge and Oden, with Brandon Roy to orchestrate.
We have Lee and Curry, and Marbury.
Somehow just not the same.
So they could afford to dump a huge salary, questionable character, 20/10 guy.
We dump Zach and things are just not set to bloom.
Even Travis Outlaw is a better SF than any of our handful.
And I'd like sure to have the defensive presence and grit of Jarrett Jack (hoping we can get him).

You're proposing a salary dump and trading down in the draft in hopes of some maybe FA in a couple years.
Fanciful thinking.
I'd rather aim to pick a starter, hopefully a future star, in the upcoming draft.
Worry about moving Curry and Zach another day, in another way.

agree with this assessment totally

add a healthy Pryzbilla, gritty Steve Blake and a very serviceable James Jones and they were all set for a jump in the win column

getting rid of Zach did open up shots and pt for the young core they have, however, I'm not sure NY would win more with teh scrubs Isiah drafted/paid getting more shots...if you can't hit the side of a barn, not commit dumb fouls, not make free throws in 15 minutes of pt what chance do you have in 30?

[Edited by - McK1 on 24-04-2008 11:27 AM]
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
4/24/2008  11:46 AM
Posted by BoDid:
Originally posted by King1:

You need to get money free and if you could slide late lottery to get rid of a career loser and bad team player that makes 15 million a year you do it. Hell Portland traded a 20/10 player and became better and we became worse. If your playing to win now you sign Lee and keep the lottery pick. If your playing for 2011 trade Lee and trade down to get rid of a contract.
Except that Portland already had a core of high draft picks on their roster (after great drafting in 2006) -- Aldridge and Oden, with Brandon Roy to orchestrate.
We have Lee and Curry, and Marbury.
Somehow just not the same.
So they could afford to dump a huge salary, questionable character, 20/10 guy.
We dump Zach and things are just not set to bloom.
Even Travis Outlaw is a better SF than any of our handful.
And I'd like sure to have the defensive presence and grit of Jarrett Jack (hoping we can get him).

You're proposing a salary dump and trading down in the draft in hopes of some maybe FA in a couple years.
Fanciful thinking.
I'd rather aim to pick a starter, hopefully a future star, in the upcoming draft.
Worry about moving Curry and Zach another day, in another way.
We dump Zach and we'll have the *ability* to develop a core without a ball-hog who complains if he doesn't get his share of touches and minutes.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
4/24/2008  11:48 AM
Posted by McK1:
Posted by BoDid:
Originally posted by King1:

You need to get money free and if you could slide late lottery to get rid of a career loser and bad team player that makes 15 million a year you do it. Hell Portland traded a 20/10 player and became better and we became worse. If your playing to win now you sign Lee and keep the lottery pick. If your playing for 2011 trade Lee and trade down to get rid of a contract.
Except that Portland already had a core of high draft picks on their roster (after great drafting in 2006) -- Aldridge and Oden, with Brandon Roy to orchestrate.
We have Lee and Curry, and Marbury.
Somehow just not the same.
So they could afford to dump a huge salary, questionable character, 20/10 guy.
We dump Zach and things are just not set to bloom.
Even Travis Outlaw is a better SF than any of our handful.
And I'd like sure to have the defensive presence and grit of Jarrett Jack (hoping we can get him).

You're proposing a salary dump and trading down in the draft in hopes of some maybe FA in a couple years.
Fanciful thinking.
I'd rather aim to pick a starter, hopefully a future star, in the upcoming draft.
Worry about moving Curry and Zach another day, in another way.

agree with this assessment totally

add a healthy Pryzbilla, gritty Steve Blake and a very serviceable James Jones and they were all set for a jump in the win column

getting rid of Zach did open up shots and pt for the young core they have, however, I'm not sure NY would win more with teh scrubs Isiah drafted/paid getting more shots...if you can't hit the side of a barn, not commit dumb fouls, not make free throws in 15 minutes of pt what chance do you have in 30?

[Edited by - McK1 on 24-04-2008 11:27 AM]

We won't win next year with or without Zach. That's not the question. The question is, what should we do about Zach if the goal is to develop a core of players who can some day bring a winning team to NY?
BoDid
Posts: 20043
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/17/2006
Member: #1114
China
4/24/2008  11:57 AM
No, the question is whether we should trade down in the draft.
With a Zach dump being one proposed reason for doing it.
I assume moving Zach has its own thread.
--------------------------------------------------
McK1, judging by your tagline, we have similar Knick vision.
I'd also like to move Crawford, who does have some value around the league.
Though I don't see any college hoops, so can't comment on the Mayo part

[Edited by - bodid on 04-25-2008 01:02 AM]
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
4/24/2008  12:23 PM
Posted by BoDid:

No, the question is whether we should trade down in the draft.
With a Zach dump being one proposed reason for doing it.
I assume moving Zach has its own thread.
OK, just point me to it.

Realistically, on message boards, conversations go in all sorts of directions. If the initial topic was trading down to get rid of Zach, what's wrong with the fact that some of us are discussing trading Zach more generally?
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
4/24/2008  12:25 PM
We dump Zach and we'll have the *ability* to develop a core without a ball-hog who complains if he doesn't get his share of touches and minutes.


A core of who? Other then Lee and the midget none of our younger players have played well over an extended time period nor have they even proven to be legit NBA players. So how can you say developing young core?
We won't win next year with or without Zach. That's not the question. The question is, what should we do about Zach if the goal is to develop a core of players who can some day bring a winning team to NY?

Again I question if you replace Zach with just another overpaid player how is that furthering this agenda of developing our young core (though there really isn't much of a core)? Your advocating that the Knicks bring in another 10 million dollar a year player to basically sit on the bench. That doesn't exactly make a lot of sense when you get past all the smoke screens. Look if there is a good deal to be had for Randolph then I say it do it but making more bad deals, trades that do nothing to further the team's talent, or even help the immediate cap situation to me is just business as usual from the Knicks. We all should be hoping for better moves from the next GM not more of the same.
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
4/24/2008  12:33 PM
i like Mayo's shot plus he has star power. he may be a little selfish but Tim Floyd's offense left alot to be desired.

if NY could move Crawford for a mid 1st, I'd also like to add Wash St.'s Weaver to the future backcourt rotation.

bonn there is only 1 other player whose owed the same money as Zach 3 yrs 48 mil and in a losing situation and that is Redd and Sen kohl nixed 1 deal that would've brought Zach to Milwaukee.

the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
4/24/2008  12:55 PM
Posted by McK1:

i like Mayo's shot plus he has star power. he may be a little selfish but Tim Floyd's offense left alot to be desired.

if NY could move Crawford for a mid 1st, I'd also like to add Wash St.'s Weaver to the future backcourt rotation.

or someone like augustine...

if the knicks come out of this draft with augustine + mayo...that's a big time rebuilding step.
Page 3 of 4 ‹ Previous 1  2  3  4 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Trade down is the best deal for the Knicks
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