Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by nysportsfan11:

Larry Miller would not do anything to help the Knicks.

He's cheap he's sickly and they are bleeding money. I view it as the Knicks helping him.

Again, Larry Miller would not do anything to help the Knicks. Miller is still absolutely bitter about how the organization treated Scott Layden.

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by nysportsfan11:

Larry Miller would not do anything to help the Knicks.

He's cheap he's sickly and they are bleeding money. I view it as the Knicks helping him.

Well after reading this article, I'm not sure Larry Miller and his franchise are in as bad a shape as you're making them out to be:

http://www.thespectrum.com/article/20081216/SPORTS/812160315/1006/rss02

He may be on the stingy side but he hardly sounds like he's "bleeding money" here. Doesn't sound to me as though Miller's soaping up the windows and getting ready to shut the store down and sell the franchise any time soon. Forbes Magazine has the Jazz as the 11th most prosperous franchise in the league - and that's despite the economy and the downward spiral of the auto industry, a big source of Miller's money. Now the writer insinuates that Miller might decide to proceed with caution as every team will probably wind up doing in these tough economic times - so I agree that he might be willing to start looking for ways to cut some payroll here and there just like I'm sure most teams are. He even speculates that Utah may not be a major player in the 2010 FA market - yet another reason why they probably hold onto their draft picks.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time here Briggs, I actually like the trade idea of trying to flip Malik to Utah. I just think expecting them to throw in that 1st rounder in a little wishful. I don't even think the Knicks would expect that unless they we're willing to throw Utah another asset like Robinson or Chandler in return. If we could ever get that 1st rounder back, fantastic - if not, the stripped down version of this trade - Malik Rose for Harpring and Morris Almond - would work for both teams. They get the expiring contract where they'd save at least Harpring's $6.5 million next season plus the million+ it would've cost them to stick with Almond (which they decided against doing anyway when they failed to pick up Almond's option). We pick up Harpring who's always been one tough S.O.B., a guy that, as long as he's healthy, is a very physical wing player that would bring toughness and a reliable mid-ranger jumpshot. Regardless of whether he's healthy or not, he's not a longterm option & comes off the cap after next year, right in time for 2010 free agency. And it also gives us a chance to try out Morris Almond to see what he's got - here's a guy that could very well excel playing the 2 for us given minutes under Mike D'Antoni. He hasn't shown a thing because Sloan has kept him buried behind Ronnie Brewer, CJ Miles and Kyle Korver all this time. If he played well, great, we found a starting 2-guard that we'd be able to lock up for reasonable money because he just hasn't built his resume yet. Bottom line on this guy is you don't have the big career at Rice and then put up multiple 50 pt. games in the D-league if you don't have any talent. Too many pluses with this kid not to give him a shot - young, tall, strong, knows how to get to the line, pure shooting stroke (Jay Bilas kept calling him the best shooter in the '07 draft right up until he got selected)... This deal alone is very fair. But to get them to kick in draft picks? I don't see why they'd do that if they didn't have to. And they don't have to. If you don't trust my opinion, go post your proposal, draft picks and all, on a Utah message board like the one over at ESPN and see what Jazz fans tell ya. Guarantee not one Utah fan over there tells you that that's something they'd be interested in. Just a hunch..

For the most part, you amass draft picks for two reasons - (a) to use them to improve your own roster OR (b) to eventually have enough resources at your disposal to make moves like Danny Ainge did in Boston. Utah could go either way - currently they could use some more depth to add to an already decent core (especially if it looks like it could be a potential lottery selection - and that's what I said before btw - potentially - look for them to keep a close eye on what the Knicks are doing - right now we suck and that pick's potentially a very good pick in 2010 - if we improve some from now into next year, it will be margially with young players and with next summer's pick - odds are you're not gonna see any major improvement until we hopefully add that one 2010 FA or two - as of now I would think that pick will be a nice pick, better than #17 - not the type of pick you decide to just sell for cash) OR they also could very well attempt something like Ainge did in Boston sometime soon. Maybe they decide to amass picks and then package those picks together with a decent player or two to get their KG, Ray Allen or Pau Gasol. I could see that. It wouldn't surprise me at all. Right now the Jazz are probably a little better than the Lakers before they got Gasol. Good but not top tier. If they're interested in taking the next step, the Jazz are gonna need to improve somehow. Holding onto their picks only helps them in this regard, doesn't hurt them in any way in my estimation...


[Edited by - finestrg on 12-28-2008 12:44 AM]