"No doubt his shot has improved drastically."

Over what period of time? From November to December? Or from middle school to Stanford senior year?

Dude has played in 41 NBA games. Sheesh.

Or better put, any player besides Felton, Fields and Amar'e.

I love Landry and he's the kind of component that can put a contender over the top. BUT YOU HAVE TO BE A CONTENDER FIRST. If Landry is what it takes in the deal than thank you very much for lasting to pick 39 and all you've done for this organization.

MSG3 wrote:Can anyone here think of a player that can be compared to Fields when he reaches his ceiling? He'll never be a guy on Havlicek's level and that was an embarassing statement by Walsh or whoever it was that made it originally. My guess he'll be somewhere between Ariza and Battier. Are we seriously not going to part with a player like that for one of Carmelo's status and ability?

I love Landry and he's the kind of component that can put a contender over the top. BUT YOU HAVE TO BE A CONTENDER FIRST. If Landry is what it takes in the deal than thank you very much for lasting to pick 39 and all you've done for this organization.

misterearl wrote:He'll never be a guy on Havlicek's level and that was an embarassing statement by Walsh or whoever it was that made it originally.

MSG3 - What is that based on?

It's based on you know almost right away who is going to be a special player who you can build a franchise around. As solid of a player as he is, Landry will not be a perenial All Star. Havlicek is a top 30 player all time. He won 4 titles in his first 4 seasons. He is considered one of the greatest (top5) defenders in NBA history. He had a very good offensive game. It's like saying Galinari is the next Bird....foolish.

You also have to take into consideration the landscape of the league. Maybe if we were'nt competing with teams that has 2-3 stars on the team we could have a real debate on whether it's worth it to give up a player like Landry. But in today's NBA to even have a shot we need that other star. And giving up Landry Fields is not too steep a price.

tj23 wrote:

misterearl wrote:Hilarious

"No doubt his shot has improved drastically."

Over what period of time? From November to December? Or from middle school to Stanford senior year?

Dude has played in 41 NBA games. Sheesh.

He wasn't considered a good shooter in college. His shot didnt look good early either. He's getting better, and quickly. What's hilarious is that anyone thinks he's better than Melo. hahaha

what's really hilarious is that you think that anyone really considers Fields better than Melo.

Don't get it twisted.

joec32033 wrote:

MSG3 wrote:Can anyone here think of a player that can be compared to Fields when he reaches his ceiling? He'll never be a guy on Havlicek's level and that was an embarassing statement by Walsh or whoever it was that made it originally. My guess he'll be somewhere between Ariza and Battier. Are we seriously not going to part with a player like that for one of Carmelo's status and ability?

I love Landry and he's the kind of component that can put a contender over the top. BUT YOU HAVE TO BE A CONTENDER FIRST. If Landry is what it takes in the deal than thank you very much for lasting to pick 39 and all you've done for this organization.

I will give this a shot:

Doug Christie
Matt Barnes
Raja Bell
Jeff Horaceck
Sean Elliot
Bobby Phills
Dan Majarle

These guys aren't all direct comparisons, but I think this is the level we are talking about. Matt Barnes is probably his floor a solid fringe starter rotation guy.

All the other guys are at his level I think. Jacks of all trades master of none, that third option guy who is always kinda there but noone appreciates. The guys that in their best season can be nominated to be in the A.S. Game by the coaches pick.

Thunder Dan comparisons are pretty good.

misterearl wrote:

knickstorrents wrote:

TMS wrote:if we can get Melo while keeping Wilson AND Gallo, then say goodbye to Fields.

I value Fields more than Wilson or Gallo actually.

I value Fields more than Carmelo.

Cool another fellow Knick fan who appreciates great basketball play! +1

No one.

The context of John Havlicek is provided for entertainment purposes only. On this sensitive issue of basketball critique, Donnie Walsh and The Answer Man are on the same page.

Give me the rookie.

See you in five years when he is playing in his second NBA All Star Game.

NYKBocker wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

MSG3 wrote:Can anyone here think of a player that can be compared to Fields when he reaches his ceiling? He'll never be a guy on Havlicek's level and that was an embarassing statement by Walsh or whoever it was that made it originally. My guess he'll be somewhere between Ariza and Battier. Are we seriously not going to part with a player like that for one of Carmelo's status and ability?

I love Landry and he's the kind of component that can put a contender over the top. BUT YOU HAVE TO BE A CONTENDER FIRST. If Landry is what it takes in the deal than thank you very much for lasting to pick 39 and all you've done for this organization.

I will give this a shot:

Doug Christie
Matt Barnes
Raja Bell
Jeff Horaceck
Sean Elliot
Bobby Phills
Dan Majarle

These guys aren't all direct comparisons, but I think this is the level we are talking about. Matt Barnes is probably his floor a solid fringe starter rotation guy.

All the other guys are at his level I think. Jacks of all trades master of none, that third option guy who is always kinda there but noone appreciates. The guys that in their best season can be nominated to be in the A.S. Game by the coaches pick.

Thunder Dan comparisons are pretty good.

i agree... Majerle's a good call joe.

still, if all it's going to take to get Melo here is giving up Landry Fields & a couple 1st round picks, i don't see any way DW turns it down... Landry is a glue guy, but before u add the glue, u first need the parts... Melo is a big key component to add to the formula... u can worry about the glue guys after u get the main pieces in place.