TMS wrote:

tkf wrote:

TMS wrote:protected picks? u guys are kidding right? protected to 1 & to 5 in back to back drafts is not much protection... that's like putting on a popped condom, sleeping with a crack ho & thinking you won't get herpes.

just think of it this way, if this years pick utah owns of ours was top 5 protected wouldn't you feel a lot better about it? how about #1 protected? come on man, you would not be upset at all... I guess the thinking is that any player we could get after pick 5 is not worth having a shot at getting multiple FA's.. not saying I was thrilled about the trade. I spoke out against it, but the fact that he protected the picks is much more than we have gotten in the past..

top 1 protection on swap rights is a joke... top 5 protection isn't much better... & Isiah actually did get protection on the pick we traded in the Marbury deal... the problem was that we've sucked so badly over the past few years we weren't able to give Utah the compensation before now & the protection expired... actually the protection he got in the Marbury trade was much better than top 5

YEA tms BUT HE mitagated the usefullness of the protection by trading away all of the other picks in between... with the curry deal especially..those picks had no protection.....

tkf wrote:

TMS wrote:

tkf wrote:

TMS wrote:protected picks? u guys are kidding right? protected to 1 & to 5 in back to back drafts is not much protection... that's like putting on a popped condom, sleeping with a crack ho & thinking you won't get herpes.

just think of it this way, if this years pick utah owns of ours was top 5 protected wouldn't you feel a lot better about it? how about #1 protected? come on man, you would not be upset at all... I guess the thinking is that any player we could get after pick 5 is not worth having a shot at getting multiple FA's.. not saying I was thrilled about the trade. I spoke out against it, but the fact that he protected the picks is much more than we have gotten in the past..

top 1 protection on swap rights is a joke... top 5 protection isn't much better... & Isiah actually did get protection on the pick we traded in the Marbury deal... the problem was that we've sucked so badly over the past few years we weren't able to give Utah the compensation before now & the protection expired... actually the protection he got in the Marbury trade was much better than top 5

YEA tms BUT HE mitagated the usefullness of the protection by trading away all of the other picks in between... with the curry deal especially..those picks had no protection.....

Walsh has done the same since his time here. The fact that his #8 pick is now a Rocket further points to that as evidence. Instead of giving the pick up to Jazz last year, he picked Hill. When everyone was declaring this a poor big man draft and he seemed to have no desire to pick points not named Curry or Rubio he should given up that pick. Now you still don't have a quality young big man and no point. You can argue that he mismanaged the draft the last two years based on his team's needs. Including Hill as a bit player in the Jeffries deal shouldn't be just whitewashed as it has been.

MS wrote:Let's just sign Rudy Gay and Randy Foye. A year down the road trade when we realize that Gallo isn't going to be who we thought he was we can move Randy, Wilson and Gallo for Chris Paul. To Go with Lee, Rudy Gay, and then see what melo is up too. If not I could live with that team for a little while

Meaning you were able to score a Bosh this off-season? If so that would be a solid plan but if you still haven't score your big man this summer and come back with Lee even at $10 million would be a disaster.

tkf wrote:

Pharzeone wrote:

tkf wrote:

TMS wrote:

tkf wrote:

TMS wrote:protected picks? u guys are kidding right? protected to 1 & to 5 in back to back drafts is not much protection... that's like putting on a popped condom, sleeping with a crack ho & thinking you won't get herpes.

just think of it this way, if this years pick utah owns of ours was top 5 protected wouldn't you feel a lot better about it? how about #1 protected? come on man, you would not be upset at all... I guess the thinking is that any player we could get after pick 5 is not worth having a shot at getting multiple FA's.. not saying I was thrilled about the trade. I spoke out against it, but the fact that he protected the picks is much more than we have gotten in the past..

top 1 protection on swap rights is a joke... top 5 protection isn't much better... & Isiah actually did get protection on the pick we traded in the Marbury deal... the problem was that we've sucked so badly over the past few years we weren't able to give Utah the compensation before now & the protection expired... actually the protection he got in the Marbury trade was much better than top 5

YEA tms BUT HE mitagated the usefullness of the protection by trading away all of the other picks in between... with the curry deal especially..those picks had no protection.....

Walsh has done the same since his time here. The fact that his #8 pick is now a Rocket further points to that as evidence. Instead of giving the pick up to Jazz last year, he picked Hill. When everyone was declaring this a poor big man draft and he seemed to have no desire to pick points not named Curry or Rubio he should given up that pick. Now you still don't have a quality young big man and no point. You can argue that he mismanaged the draft the last two years based on his team's needs. Including Hill as a bit player in the Jeffries deal shouldn't be just whitewashed as it has been.

No he hasn't.. was there an option for the knicks to give the pick to the jazz last year? I didnt' hear of one.. what walsh did was take the pick and turn it into cap space.... how is that the same thing isiah has done? Isiah turned those picks into overpaid lazy players... the draft pick is a crap shoot, you can get a gem as well as a bust, what walsh did was mitiage the chance of having a bust(as many of you called hill) and now giving himself a chance to sign a bonafide, proven NBA all star calibre player.. Much different my friend..

walsh's blunder was not selecting a p-guard w the pick this past year - rather he selected another pf - the team had like 4 of them at the time of the selection....that's on walsh.

jimimou wrote:

tkf wrote:

Pharzeone wrote:

tkf wrote:

TMS wrote:

tkf wrote:

TMS wrote:protected picks? u guys are kidding right? protected to 1 & to 5 in back to back drafts is not much protection... that's like putting on a popped condom, sleeping with a crack ho & thinking you won't get herpes.

just think of it this way, if this years pick utah owns of ours was top 5 protected wouldn't you feel a lot better about it? how about #1 protected? come on man, you would not be upset at all... I guess the thinking is that any player we could get after pick 5 is not worth having a shot at getting multiple FA's.. not saying I was thrilled about the trade. I spoke out against it, but the fact that he protected the picks is much more than we have gotten in the past..

top 1 protection on swap rights is a joke... top 5 protection isn't much better... & Isiah actually did get protection on the pick we traded in the Marbury deal... the problem was that we've sucked so badly over the past few years we weren't able to give Utah the compensation before now & the protection expired... actually the protection he got in the Marbury trade was much better than top 5

YEA tms BUT HE mitagated the usefullness of the protection by trading away all of the other picks in between... with the curry deal especially..those picks had no protection.....

Walsh has done the same since his time here. The fact that his #8 pick is now a Rocket further points to that as evidence. Instead of giving the pick up to Jazz last year, he picked Hill. When everyone was declaring this a poor big man draft and he seemed to have no desire to pick points not named Curry or Rubio he should given up that pick. Now you still don't have a quality young big man and no point. You can argue that he mismanaged the draft the last two years based on his team's needs. Including Hill as a bit player in the Jeffries deal shouldn't be just whitewashed as it has been.

No he hasn't.. was there an option for the knicks to give the pick to the jazz last year? I didnt' hear of one.. what walsh did was take the pick and turn it into cap space.... how is that the same thing isiah has done? Isiah turned those picks into overpaid lazy players... the draft pick is a crap shoot, you can get a gem as well as a bust, what walsh did was mitiage the chance of having a bust(as many of you called hill) and now giving himself a chance to sign a bonafide, proven NBA all star calibre player.. Much different my friend..

walsh's blunder was not selecting a p-guard w the pick this past year - rather he selected another pf - the team had like 4 of them at the time of the selection....that's on walsh.

that is a different topic...

Andrew wrote:Pharzeone, I think you may be interpreting how the pick protection works. I don't think the Knicks had the option to send the pick to Utah early. Have you read something that indicates this was an option?

Teams with protection always have the option to give the pick. Protection is for the team trading the pick away. So for example, if a team decides for cap reason that they rather not take a lottery pick even though the pick is protected for a certain year they can elect to trade the pick that year that they are eligible. Normally protection ends after 5 years on first round picks but protection I think can go up to 10 years on 2nd round picks. The Knicks had the option to give the Jazz the pick since 2006 after the year where they were require to keep their pick in 2005. Normally you see a blurb somewhere or may hear it on lottery night where a team elects to keep its pick or give it away according to a previous trade.

nixluva wrote:It's interesting that people should be so down on Joe Johnson. The addition of JJ3 would be most likely in a move to go in the direction of team built around multiple All Stars rather than one or two Superstars. That's not a failure IMO. If you look at Boston they basically had that kind of team. JJ3 would be for us in the role of a Ray Allen or Paul Pierce in the big 3. From a production standpoint JJ3 has for the last 3 yrs been a 21/4reb/5ast guy with very high %'s, which is a very solid piece to add to a team. You then pair that with a TMac and either Bosh/Lee/Amare along with Gallo, Chan and some decent young role players and you have a top 5 team in the East IMO. We'd just have to find a cheap Shotblocker, perhaps Camby.

i'd be all right with that except for one thing - misterearl watches him a lot in person and says stay away from him.

LivingLegend wrote:

Sudden Surge?

We lost by 50 points 2 games ago and we beat a life-less Piston's team on Wednesday.

The game inside the game is what we look at during these times.

That game inside the game has looked pretty good recently.

nixluva wrote:

Pharzeone wrote:

nixluva wrote:It's interesting that people should be so down on Joe Johnson. The addition of JJ3 would be most likely in a move to go in the direction of team built around multiple All Stars rather than one or two Superstars. That's not a failure IMO. If you look at Boston they basically had that kind of team. JJ3 would be for us in the role of a Ray Allen or Paul Pierce in the big 3. From a production standpoint JJ3 has for the last 3 yrs been a 21/4reb/5ast guy with very high %'s, which is a very solid piece to add to a team. You then pair that with a TMac and either Bosh/Lee/Amare along with Gallo, Chan and some decent young role players and you have a top 5 team in the East IMO. We'd just have to find a cheap Shotblocker, perhaps Camby.

Nix, I think when Walsh was first selling the 2010 dream as his plan, JJ3 was not the type of level of player considered to be the building block. As reality has set in, management has slowly tried to rationalize that type of player. For example, Walsh recently has stated that he was willing to make trades that brought back an all-star caliber player. I like JJ3 but I'm not of the opinion he is a franchise changer. Just go back to his first year in Atlanta. His fortunes did not changed until the maturity of Smith and Williams and the addition of Horford. There would be a reason that Joe would be available to NY. All things being equal meaning that he was likely to get max money from the Hawks. He would stay in Atlanta where he is very happy. My question is why wouldn't Atlanta be willing to pay him that money if they thought he was worth it.

The only Franchise changers in the NBA right now are Lebron, Wade, Kobe, Durant and maybe Melo. That's it IMO. Some of the old guard are too far down the road to be put in this category. Only 2 of those guys are available and with such a small group the odds aren't in anyones favor to be able to add a franchise changing player. I think it's just a bit too unreasonable for fans to expect that as if it is something easy to guarantee.

Now getting several All Star Level players and putting together a great team is entirely possible. You have to aim high, but let's be honest that's not something there was ever a high probability of happening. It was always more likely that we would be able to go after All Star level players to try and put a winning team together. It shows how warped our thinking has become to assume that it's somehow a failure if we do that. Man that's a really good move for this franchise and we can always build from there as DW has said we would.

I think this is a bit of a 'cop out' from what was said back in April 2008. AS reality has set in and what was not acceptable before when the plan was set in motion has now been pushed out to the fan base as a fall back. But saying that was Walsh's initial plan to just get a bunch of good players with his cap space is being disingenuous. This is similar to what took place in Chicago at the end of 90s and how the franchise ended up with the Ron Mercers of the world instead of the elite players that the fan base was promised when Krause set his plan in motion at the end of the 98 season. Ironically enough they had to rebuild through the draft while they pretty much wasted their cap space on all-star player types like Wallace.

tkf wrote:

Pharzeone wrote:

tkf wrote:

TMS wrote:

tkf wrote:

TMS wrote:protected picks? u guys are kidding right? protected to 1 & to 5 in back to back drafts is not much protection... that's like putting on a popped condom, sleeping with a crack ho & thinking you won't get herpes.

just think of it this way, if this years pick utah owns of ours was top 5 protected wouldn't you feel a lot better about it? how about #1 protected? come on man, you would not be upset at all... I guess the thinking is that any player we could get after pick 5 is not worth having a shot at getting multiple FA's.. not saying I was thrilled about the trade. I spoke out against it, but the fact that he protected the picks is much more than we have gotten in the past..

top 1 protection on swap rights is a joke... top 5 protection isn't much better... & Isiah actually did get protection on the pick we traded in the Marbury deal... the problem was that we've sucked so badly over the past few years we weren't able to give Utah the compensation before now & the protection expired... actually the protection he got in the Marbury trade was much better than top 5

YEA tms BUT HE mitagated the usefullness of the protection by trading away all of the other picks in between... with the curry deal especially..those picks had no protection.....

Walsh has done the same since his time here. The fact that his #8 pick is now a Rocket further points to that as evidence. Instead of giving the pick up to Jazz last year, he picked Hill. When everyone was declaring this a poor big man draft and he seemed to have no desire to pick points not named Curry or Rubio he should given up that pick. Now you still don't have a quality young big man and no point. You can argue that he mismanaged the draft the last two years based on his team's needs. Including Hill as a bit player in the Jeffries deal shouldn't be just whitewashed as it has been.

No he hasn't.. was there an option for the knicks to give the pick to the jazz last year? I didnt' hear of one.. what walsh did was take the pick and turn it into cap space.... how is that the same thing isiah has done? Isiah turned those picks into overpaid lazy players... the draft pick is a crap shoot, you can get a gem as well as a bust, what walsh did was mitiage the chance of having a bust(as many of you called hill) and now giving himself a chance to sign a bonafide, proven NBA all star calibre player.. Much different my friend..

Isiah obviously made a mistake in giving up swap rights & another protected pick for Eddy Curry & in giving up that future protected pick in the Marbury trade, but at the time Curry was still regarded by many as a promising young C w/huge upside & Marbury was an Allstar PG in his prime... sure, there were people who raged against making these deals (& in hindsight they were 100% right), but at least he got back players in the deal... yes, he made huge mistakes in both cases, but he got tangible players, not a lotto ticket for the summer... Donnie Walsh has mortgaged the future on the slim hope of signing Lebron James in July... i don't wanna hear this talk that we have other options than Lebron right now, that's BS to me cuz we had other options before making this trade... & dismissing Jordan Hill as a likely bust like many of y'all have done (not saying u) is funny to me cuz in effect that's admitting Donnie Walsh was an idiot for picking him in the first place... this "oh well, Donnie phucked up by taking Hill in the first place, we mine as well throw him in to this deal while we're at it cuz he's gonna be a bust anyways" mentality is assinine to me... he obviously missed on guys like Jennings, Collins, Gibson & Blair in this draft, there's no denying it, but suddenly deeming that your #8 lottery pick from just a few months ago has no more value is a fool's approach.

look, i am all for having at least a shot at signing guys like Lebron, i'm just not a fan of giving up so many assets & having no real fallback plan in the process... if we had held onto our swap rights & our 2012 pick, i'd have had no real problem w/this trade... even tho i thought Jordan Hill deserved more of a look i'd have been willing to give him up to dump Fishlips' contract... at least we'd still have the future picks to fall back on if we ended up sucking again & wouldn't be so pressured into signing 2nd & 3rd tier talent this summer if things don't work out & the big names don't end up coming here... now basically, we're painted into a corner & have no other choice but to sign anyone who will take our money this summer just to make sure we don't end up giving away back to back to back lottery picks in 3 successive seasons (Jordan Hill, 2010, 2011) & another potential one in 2012! i mean, when does the madness stop? shouldn't we have learned our lesson from the Marbury & Curry deals, whether they were different in theory or not? giving away picks is never a good idea unless you have a guaranteed player coming back that is worthy of those picks.