Bonn1997 wrote:

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Of course we can. Every good player that we add over the next 5 years is because of the Melo trade.

So, snark aside, you're saying Chandler can not be considered as a direct pay-off from that trade?

We'll never know. If we're gonna accept the claim that star players bring in other players, though, then Dwight Howard, Chris Paul, or whoever we used our assets to acquire would have brought in players too. Any inclusion of potential indirect effects of the Melo trade would have to include potential indirect effects of any other trade we used our assets on. (Clearly we're headed towards infinite paralysis if we start to bring in all feasible indirect effects.)

My only point is you can draw a straight line from Chauncey Billups (an asset acquired in the trade that we otherwise would not have had) to Tyson Chandler. I agree with everything else you say about the futility of infinite extrapolation.

You're basically arguing that it's okay to look at an effect that is indirect by one step but not by two or more steps. That's an arbitrary cut off.

On edit: You can't draw a straight line from Chauncey to Tyson anyway. It's not like we traded Chauncey for Tyson. You can draw a straight line from the amnesty clause to Tyson.

Semantics. Billups and his hefty team option was an asset recieved in the trade. That was flipped for Chandler. Trade or amnesty, what's the difference?

The difference is that the amnesty clause is something we would have had even without the Melo trade, and we did not need to make the Melo trade to be able to get Tyson.

What good is the amnesty clause if you don't have the right asset? And I think it's a lot clearer to see how Chandler arrives this way than generating scenarios of how he gets here without Billups' contract. Not sure why this so controversial...

Billups wasn't an asset; he was an obstacle. I'm pretty sure we would have directly had the cap space to sign Tyson without the trade. If not, we could have used the amnesty clause to free up space.

You have zero way of knowing that. Do we sign Wilson Chandler? Do we extend Gallo? Who gets amnestied? Would Chandler even come to the Knicks with a regressed Amare and an uproven core? Seems like you're the one reaching here my man.

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Of course we can. Every good player that we add over the next 5 years is because of the Melo trade.

So, snark aside, you're saying Chandler can not be considered as a direct pay-off from that trade?

We'll never know. If we're gonna accept the claim that star players bring in other players, though, then Dwight Howard, Chris Paul, or whoever we used our assets to acquire would have brought in players too. Any inclusion of potential indirect effects of the Melo trade would have to include potential indirect effects of any other trade we used our assets on. (Clearly we're headed towards infinite paralysis if we start to bring in all feasible indirect effects.)

My only point is you can draw a straight line from Chauncey Billups (an asset acquired in the trade that we otherwise would not have had) to Tyson Chandler. I agree with everything else you say about the futility of infinite extrapolation.

You're basically arguing that it's okay to look at an effect that is indirect by one step but not by two or more steps. That's an arbitrary cut off.

On edit: You can't draw a straight line from Chauncey to Tyson anyway. It's not like we traded Chauncey for Tyson. You can draw a straight line from the amnesty clause to Tyson.

Semantics. Billups and his hefty team option was an asset recieved in the trade. That was flipped for Chandler. Trade or amnesty, what's the difference?

The difference is that the amnesty clause is something we would have had even without the Melo trade, and we did not need to make the Melo trade to be able to get Tyson.

What good is the amnesty clause if you don't have the right asset? And I think it's a lot clearer to see how Chandler arrives this way than generating scenarios of how he gets here without Billups' contract. Not sure why this so controversial...

Billups wasn't an asset; he was an obstacle. I'm pretty sure we would have directly had the cap space to sign Tyson without the trade. If not, we could have used the amnesty clause to free up space.

You have zero way of knowing that. Do we sign Wilson Chandler? Do we extend Gallo? Who gets amnestied? Would Chandler even come to the Knicks with a regressed Amare and an uproven core? Seems like you're the one reaching here my man.

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Of course we can. Every good player that we add over the next 5 years is because of the Melo trade.

So, snark aside, you're saying Chandler can not be considered as a direct pay-off from that trade?

We'll never know. If we're gonna accept the claim that star players bring in other players, though, then Dwight Howard, Chris Paul, or whoever we used our assets to acquire would have brought in players too. Any inclusion of potential indirect effects of the Melo trade would have to include potential indirect effects of any other trade we used our assets on. (Clearly we're headed towards infinite paralysis if we start to bring in all feasible indirect effects.)

My only point is you can draw a straight line from Chauncey Billups (an asset acquired in the trade that we otherwise would not have had) to Tyson Chandler. I agree with everything else you say about the futility of infinite extrapolation.

You're basically arguing that it's okay to look at an effect that is indirect by one step but not by two or more steps. That's an arbitrary cut off.

On edit: You can't draw a straight line from Chauncey to Tyson anyway. It's not like we traded Chauncey for Tyson. You can draw a straight line from the amnesty clause to Tyson.

Semantics. Billups and his hefty team option was an asset recieved in the trade. That was flipped for Chandler. Trade or amnesty, what's the difference?

The difference is that the amnesty clause is something we would have had even without the Melo trade, and we did not need to make the Melo trade to be able to get Tyson.

What good is the amnesty clause if you don't have the right asset? And I think it's a lot clearer to see how Chandler arrives this way than generating scenarios of how he gets here without Billups' contract. Not sure why this so controversial...

Billups wasn't an asset; he was an obstacle. I'm pretty sure we would have directly had the cap space to sign Tyson without the trade. If not, we could have used the amnesty clause to free up space.

You have zero way of knowing that. Do we sign Wilson Chandler? Do we extend Gallo? Who gets amnestied? Would Chandler even come to the Knicks with a regressed Amare and an uproven core? Seems like you're the one reaching here my man.

These are all different arguments than what you were making a minute ago. A minute ago you were arguing that Billups was a critical asset to getting Tyson and I was arguing against that claim. Is that still your argument or not? Are you arguing that we had to trade for Melo to get Chandler or not? (Note that if we extended Gallo, the extension would not take effect until the following year anyway. He'd still be on his rookie contract now.)

It is my argument. Why is Billups's contract an obstacle and not an asset? This is the NBA in all its hard cap glory. Large expiring deals are major assets. I was just engaging you on your unfounded fantasy that we could sign Chandler straight up. Where's your evidence?

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:
I thought we had enough cap space. If not, we could have created it easily because we had movable players on rookie contracts and the amnesty clause. The fact that Billups' contract was expiring is irrelevant. We could have used the amnesty clause on him if he had four more years of a max contract.

Maybe. But that's all pure conjecture at that point. And I'd be interested to know what players would you move? Gallo? Wil? Mozgov? Aren't these the same players we lament ad infinitum for parting with?

My claims are simple: 1) Billups and his $14M option was a major trade chip, and one that would have been parlayed either in a mid-season deal or shed off the books to make a run at a free agent (though in the new NBA, I think we've seen the end of superstar UFAs) and 2)the Knicks turned that chip into cap room to sign Tyson Chandler. Again, why is this so controversial? Does it just cause so much ache to the very fiber of your anti-trade being to think that this scenario was due to what you believe was a "smoker's gamble?"

All these questions about rookie contracts and re-signings and what/could/should have been is merely whimsy and conjecture.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:
I thought we had enough cap space. If not, we could have created it easily because we had movable players on rookie contracts and the amnesty clause. The fact that Billups' contract was expiring is irrelevant. We could have used the amnesty clause on him if he had four more years of a max contract.

Maybe. But that's all pure conjecture at that point. And I'd be interested to know what players would you move? Gallo? Wil? Mozgov? Aren't these the same players we lament ad infinitum for parting with?

My claims are simple: 1) Billups and his $14M option was a major trade chip, and one that would have been parlayed either in a mid-season deal or shed off the books to make a run at a free agent (though in the new NBA, I think we've seen the end of superstar UFAs) and 2)the Knicks turned that chip into cap room to sign Tyson Chandler. Again, why is this so controversial? Does it just cause so much ache to the very fiber of your anti-trade being to think that this scenario was due to what you believe was a "smoker's gamble?"

All these questions about rookie contracts and re-signings and what/could/should have been is merely whimsy and conjecture.

Everything we're discussing is conjecture. When you start to bring in indirect effects of trades, all you're doing is conjecture. It's certainly possible that the perception of Melo as a superstar attracted other players to the team. I never said that that was impossible. I've just been saying that we'll never know if it was the case or not.

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:
I thought we had enough cap space. If not, we could have created it easily because we had movable players on rookie contracts and the amnesty clause. The fact that Billups' contract was expiring is irrelevant. We could have used the amnesty clause on him if he had four more years of a max contract.

Maybe. But that's all pure conjecture at that point. And I'd be interested to know what players would you move? Gallo? Wil? Mozgov? Aren't these the same players we lament ad infinitum for parting with?

My claims are simple: 1) Billups and his $14M option was a major trade chip, and one that would have been parlayed either in a mid-season deal or shed off the books to make a run at a free agent (though in the new NBA, I think we've seen the end of superstar UFAs) and 2)the Knicks turned that chip into cap room to sign Tyson Chandler. Again, why is this so controversial? Does it just cause so much ache to the very fiber of your anti-trade being to think that this scenario was due to what you believe was a "smoker's gamble?"

All these questions about rookie contracts and re-signings and what/could/should have been is merely whimsy and conjecture.

Everything we're discussing is conjecture. When you start to bring in indirect effects of trades, all you're doing is conjecture. It's certainly possible that the perception of Melo as a superstar attracted other players to the team. I never said that that was impossible. I've just been saying that we'll never know if it was the case or not.

Well I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree then. Where you look at Chandler as an indirect effect of the trade, I see him as a direct effect. Anyway, good, civilized back-and-forth!

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:
I thought we had enough cap space. If not, we could have created it easily because we had movable players on rookie contracts and the amnesty clause. The fact that Billups' contract was expiring is irrelevant. We could have used the amnesty clause on him if he had four more years of a max contract.

Maybe. But that's all pure conjecture at that point. And I'd be interested to know what players would you move? Gallo? Wil? Mozgov? Aren't these the same players we lament ad infinitum for parting with?

My claims are simple: 1) Billups and his $14M option was a major trade chip, and one that would have been parlayed either in a mid-season deal or shed off the books to make a run at a free agent (though in the new NBA, I think we've seen the end of superstar UFAs) and 2)the Knicks turned that chip into cap room to sign Tyson Chandler. Again, why is this so controversial? Does it just cause so much ache to the very fiber of your anti-trade being to think that this scenario was due to what you believe was a "smoker's gamble?"

All these questions about rookie contracts and re-signings and what/could/should have been is merely whimsy and conjecture.

Everything we're discussing is conjecture. When you start to bring in indirect effects of trades, all you're doing is conjecture. It's certainly possible that the perception of Melo as a superstar attracted other players to the team. I never said that that was impossible. I've just been saying that we'll never know if it was the case or not.

Well I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree then. Where you look at Chandler as an indirect effect of the trade, I see him as a direct effect. Anyway, good, civilized back-and-forth!

Yeah, I think it is getting circular. No one's shown me how we couldn't have just outright signed Tyson without the Melo trade. But I enjoyed the respectful discussion.

You had to stick that last one in didn't you? Simply, it's impossible to know! Okay, I'm done. Boston sucks!

LOL! You added your last view that the Chandler signing was a direct effect. Maybe I shouldn't have but I felt I needed to explain how I was seeing it. Yeah Boston sucks. And the Mets Suck!

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:
I thought we had enough cap space. If not, we could have created it easily because we had movable players on rookie contracts and the amnesty clause. The fact that Billups' contract was expiring is irrelevant. We could have used the amnesty clause on him if he had four more years of a max contract.

Maybe. But that's all pure conjecture at that point. And I'd be interested to know what players would you move? Gallo? Wil? Mozgov? Aren't these the same players we lament ad infinitum for parting with?

My claims are simple: 1) Billups and his $14M option was a major trade chip, and one that would have been parlayed either in a mid-season deal or shed off the books to make a run at a free agent (though in the new NBA, I think we've seen the end of superstar UFAs) and 2)the Knicks turned that chip into cap room to sign Tyson Chandler. Again, why is this so controversial? Does it just cause so much ache to the very fiber of your anti-trade being to think that this scenario was due to what you believe was a "smoker's gamble?"

All these questions about rookie contracts and re-signings and what/could/should have been is merely whimsy and conjecture.

Everything we're discussing is conjecture. When you start to bring in indirect effects of trades, all you're doing is conjecture. It's certainly possible that the perception of Melo as a superstar attracted other players to the team. I never said that that was impossible. I've just been saying that we'll never know if it was the case or not.

If we didn't make the trade, our starting lineup would likely be Felton, Fields, Gallo, Stoudemire, and maybe T Chandler, but that might be a stretch. It's a nice team, but not what we have now. That is how you judge a major trade from a year ago like the Melo trade. Instead of having a declining Stoudemire and some solid role players, we have Lin and Melo, potentially 2 franchise players that we wouldn't have otherwise. We would have a solid team, but lack the upside. On top of it, we would be in the same cap situation as we are now, having to resign Gallo.

Or we could have used the assets we had to acquire a different star player.

What star? New Orleans and Orlando wouldn't have any interest in Gallo, Chandler, Felton, etc. NOt sure why you think they would.

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:
I thought we had enough cap space. If not, we could have created it easily because we had movable players on rookie contracts and the amnesty clause. The fact that Billups' contract was expiring is irrelevant. We could have used the amnesty clause on him if he had four more years of a max contract.

Maybe. But that's all pure conjecture at that point. And I'd be interested to know what players would you move? Gallo? Wil? Mozgov? Aren't these the same players we lament ad infinitum for parting with?

My claims are simple: 1) Billups and his $14M option was a major trade chip, and one that would have been parlayed either in a mid-season deal or shed off the books to make a run at a free agent (though in the new NBA, I think we've seen the end of superstar UFAs) and 2)the Knicks turned that chip into cap room to sign Tyson Chandler. Again, why is this so controversial? Does it just cause so much ache to the very fiber of your anti-trade being to think that this scenario was due to what you believe was a "smoker's gamble?"

All these questions about rookie contracts and re-signings and what/could/should have been is merely whimsy and conjecture.

Everything we're discussing is conjecture. When you start to bring in indirect effects of trades, all you're doing is conjecture. It's certainly possible that the perception of Melo as a superstar attracted other players to the team. I never said that that was impossible. I've just been saying that we'll never know if it was the case or not.

If we didn't make the trade, our starting lineup would likely be Felton, Fields, Gallo, Stoudemire, and maybe T Chandler, but that might be a stretch. It's a nice team, but not what we have now. That is how you judge a major trade from a year ago like the Melo trade. Instead of having a declining Stoudemire and some solid role players, we have Lin and Melo, potentially 2 franchise players that we wouldn't have otherwise. We would have a solid team, but lack the upside. On top of it, we would be in the same cap situation as we are now, having to resign Gallo.

Or we could have used the assets we had to acquire a different star player.

What star? New Orleans and Orlando wouldn't have any interest in Gallo, Chandler, Felton, etc. NOt sure why you think they would.

Now you're the one making assumptions. We included draft picks too. Maybe we'd have to have included Amare (who had higher trade value before this season) but your argument only works if you assume that the only two options were keeping the former team intact and trading for Carmelo.

I was playing devil's advacate. You assumed another star would be available, and that is not necessarily the case. Getting back to the original argument: The deal was worth it because we are a better team after it than before it. Your only arguments left is that it was either luck or we were better off not trading for Melo because there would be a better hypothetical deal sometime after. Neither is a valid argument.

OF COURSE, it was a total accident that it worked out so well. I can't believe Tyson left the Mavs, but he did. Lin, as we all know, only got his shot because Baron wasn't ready and had a set back and Bibby wasn't particularly impressive in the minutes he was given. I want assume that Amare will step it up again, and if he can get to 95% of last year that'll drastically improve the team. Baron and the new newbs off the bench for relief, a change of attack, the supposed "instant offense" and this these guys seem to only have an upward trajectory...but I don't want to get ****y or jinx anyone.