gunsnewing wrote:99.9% of championship teams have at least 1 guy they drafted. It makes taking a chance on other teams free agents a lot less of a gamble. Need me to list those championship teams and their star homegrown players again?

U mean like the Lakers...

holfresh wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:99.9% of championship teams have at least 1 guy they drafted. It makes taking a chance on other teams free agents a lot less of a gamble. Need me to list those championship teams and their star homegrown players again?

U mean like the Lakers...

lakers, heat, celtics, spurs, mavs, bulls, pistons, sixers rockets etc

Nalod wrote:
Lakers traded Divac for rookie Kobe.

Trade a guy at the apex of his value for an asset to develope.

No guarantee but when it pans out its huge! Knicks don't take the right type of gamble.

Paid too much for Marbury and he was a disaster.

Dice trade was awful but at least you had a guy healthy for a brief shining moment (preseason). Price was too high.

We could have kept Camby and drafted Amare!

Melo for two no. 1 picks and 4 starters. Yes, melo is abonafide star but was the cost worth it? I agree with walsh and don't like the deal.

Im hoping I am wrong.

Draft picks were going to be low anyways. 4 starters? Chandler and Mozgov were only spot starters. Gallinari and Chandler were due for pay days and are now making combined what Melo makes. We lost Felton, but got back Billups to replace him. It was this move that freed up enough room to get Tyson Chandler. Then we didn't have to overpay Gallo and W Chandler. Then we got back Felton anyway, who at the time was the best player we lost in the deal. Seems like we didn't really give up that much, and what we did give up, we got a lot of it back.

Nalod wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Nalod wrote:
Lakers traded Divac for rookie Kobe.

Trade a guy at the apex of his value for an asset to develope.

No guarantee but when it pans out its huge! Knicks don't take the right type of gamble.

Paid too much for Marbury and he was a disaster.

Dice trade was awful but at least you had a guy healthy for a brief shining moment (preseason). Price was too high.

We could have kept Camby and drafted Amare!

Melo for two no. 1 picks and 4 starters. Yes, melo is abonafide star but was the cost worth it? I agree with walsh and don't like the deal.

Im hoping I am wrong.

Draft picks were going to be low anyways. 4 starters? Chandler and Mozgov were only spot starters. Gallinari and Chandler were due for pay days and are now making combined what Melo makes. We lost Felton, but got back Billups to replace him. It was this move that freed up enough room to get Tyson Chandler. Then we didn't have to overpay Gallo and W Chandler. Then we got back Felton anyway, who at the time was the best player we lost in the deal. Seems like we didn't really give up that much, and what we did give up, we got a lot of it back.

Did we? Too many pages written on this subject but I have said before that team was not written in stone and there are other moves that could have been made. CP3 shook loose, Deron shook loose and Dwight. Im not going to go over every possibilty but I think things could have been done with a broader base of talent.

LOok at the N*ts, now im not saying Joe Johnson is a better player than Melo, and Johnsons contract is crazy but the guy is just 30 years old and he was had for basically nothing but N*ts cap space. Married next to Deron, i'd say Nets got Deron/Johnson for less than Melo. Granted, its two max contracts. Perhaps we can look at Melo/Amare in the same light as Amare came as a free agent but, if Amare is in steep decline or cannot exist effectively with Melo (the chemistry thing) then its not money/assets well spent.

Its been near 100 games since Melo has been here and I don't think we have seen evidence of the chemistry as we had hoped.

Bottom line is Nets have not played a game yet so we don't know how it turns out. Im just saying there are lots of things that can be done with assets then one big old starphuck. I think smaller moves can add up.

Our front court was suppose to be one of the best in the NBA. On paper it looked great but the combonation of our three does not add up. I hope I am wrong but if we continue this way then gave up too much didn't we?

You are talking about chemistry which i agree is up in the air, but that can be said about DWill and Johnson until proven otherwise. I like Melo because he has led in team to the playoffs every year. Williams led the Nets to a 22-44 record last season. If Melo got traded to the Nets instead of us, i believe the Nets would have had a better record than 22-44. If you are going to starphuck, do it on a proven player who gets you to the playoffs, that's what Melo does. Take Stoudemire out of the equation, and as long as Felton and Chandler remain healthy, you still have a playoff team. It's been a long time since we had a real player we could rely on and a real supporting cast. I think you have to take that over cap space and flexibility. If the Melo/Stoudemire experiment doesn't work fine, you still have a fat expiring contract in 2 years which isn't that far away.

Nalod wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Nalod wrote:
Lakers traded Divac for rookie Kobe.

Trade a guy at the apex of his value for an asset to develope.

No guarantee but when it pans out its huge! Knicks don't take the right type of gamble.

Paid too much for Marbury and he was a disaster.

Dice trade was awful but at least you had a guy healthy for a brief shining moment (preseason). Price was too high.

We could have kept Camby and drafted Amare!

Melo for two no. 1 picks and 4 starters. Yes, melo is abonafide star but was the cost worth it? I agree with walsh and don't like the deal.

Im hoping I am wrong.

Draft picks were going to be low anyways. 4 starters? Chandler and Mozgov were only spot starters. Gallinari and Chandler were due for pay days and are now making combined what Melo makes. We lost Felton, but got back Billups to replace him. It was this move that freed up enough room to get Tyson Chandler. Then we didn't have to overpay Gallo and W Chandler. Then we got back Felton anyway, who at the time was the best player we lost in the deal. Seems like we didn't really give up that much, and what we did give up, we got a lot of it back.

Did we? Too many pages written on this subject but I have said before that team was not written in stone and there are other moves that could have been made. CP3 shook loose, Deron shook loose and Dwight. Im not going to go over every possibilty but I think things could have been done with a broader base of talent.

LOok at the N*ts, now im not saying Joe Johnson is a better player than Melo, and Johnsons contract is crazy but the guy is just 30 years old and he was had for basically nothing but N*ts cap space. Married next to Deron, i'd say Nets got Deron/Johnson for less than Melo. Granted, its two max contracts. Perhaps we can look at Melo/Amare in the same light as Amare came as a free agent but, if Amare is in steep decline or cannot exist effectively with Melo (the chemistry thing) then its not money/assets well spent.

Its been near 100 games since Melo has been here and I don't think we have seen evidence of the chemistry as we had hoped.

Bottom line is Nets have not played a game yet so we don't know how it turns out. Im just saying there are lots of things that can be done with assets then one big old starphuck. I think smaller moves can add up.

Our front court was suppose to be one of the best in the NBA. On paper it looked great but the combonation of our three does not add up. I hope I am wrong but if we continue this way then gave up too much didn't we?

I was thinking about that and how lucky we got getting Tyson with the amnesty. Otherwise it would be Melo and a gimpy Amare and not much else. Nets were able to keep Lopez and hump and sign deron, johnson, wallace & blatche!

gunsnewing wrote:

Nalod wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Nalod wrote:
Lakers traded Divac for rookie Kobe.

Trade a guy at the apex of his value for an asset to develope.

No guarantee but when it pans out its huge! Knicks don't take the right type of gamble.

Paid too much for Marbury and he was a disaster.

Dice trade was awful but at least you had a guy healthy for a brief shining moment (preseason). Price was too high.

We could have kept Camby and drafted Amare!

Melo for two no. 1 picks and 4 starters. Yes, melo is abonafide star but was the cost worth it? I agree with walsh and don't like the deal.

Im hoping I am wrong.

Draft picks were going to be low anyways. 4 starters? Chandler and Mozgov were only spot starters. Gallinari and Chandler were due for pay days and are now making combined what Melo makes. We lost Felton, but got back Billups to replace him. It was this move that freed up enough room to get Tyson Chandler. Then we didn't have to overpay Gallo and W Chandler. Then we got back Felton anyway, who at the time was the best player we lost in the deal. Seems like we didn't really give up that much, and what we did give up, we got a lot of it back.

Did we? Too many pages written on this subject but I have said before that team was not written in stone and there are other moves that could have been made. CP3 shook loose, Deron shook loose and Dwight. Im not going to go over every possibilty but I think things could have been done with a broader base of talent.

LOok at the N*ts, now im not saying Joe Johnson is a better player than Melo, and Johnsons contract is crazy but the guy is just 30 years old and he was had for basically nothing but N*ts cap space. Married next to Deron, i'd say Nets got Deron/Johnson for less than Melo. Granted, its two max contracts. Perhaps we can look at Melo/Amare in the same light as Amare came as a free agent but, if Amare is in steep decline or cannot exist effectively with Melo (the chemistry thing) then its not money/assets well spent.

Its been near 100 games since Melo has been here and I don't think we have seen evidence of the chemistry as we had hoped.

Bottom line is Nets have not played a game yet so we don't know how it turns out. Im just saying there are lots of things that can be done with assets then one big old starphuck. I think smaller moves can add up.

Our front court was suppose to be one of the best in the NBA. On paper it looked great but the combonation of our three does not add up. I hope I am wrong but if we continue this way then gave up too much didn't we?

I was thinking about that and how lucky we got getting Tyson with the amnesty. Otherwise it would be Melo and a gimpy Amare and not much else. Nets were able to keep Lopez and hump and sign deron, johnson, wallace & blatche!

No. We would/should have amnestied Amare this past summer or next summer and gotten a real star. Howard, CP3, DWil ...

And, we would have had money to sign a second guy in the 10-15 million range. Now Tyson is essentially costing us more than 30 million in cap space being that he is piggybacking amare.

This is not a knock on Tyson. He is worth what he got even though no other teams made him an offer other than Golden State.

Nalod wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

Nalod wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Nalod wrote:
Lakers traded Divac for rookie Kobe.

Trade a guy at the apex of his value for an asset to develope.

No guarantee but when it pans out its huge! Knicks don't take the right type of gamble.

Paid too much for Marbury and he was a disaster.

Dice trade was awful but at least you had a guy healthy for a brief shining moment (preseason). Price was too high.

We could have kept Camby and drafted Amare!

Melo for two no. 1 picks and 4 starters. Yes, melo is abonafide star but was the cost worth it? I agree with walsh and don't like the deal.

Im hoping I am wrong.

Draft picks were going to be low anyways. 4 starters? Chandler and Mozgov were only spot starters. Gallinari and Chandler were due for pay days and are now making combined what Melo makes. We lost Felton, but got back Billups to replace him. It was this move that freed up enough room to get Tyson Chandler. Then we didn't have to overpay Gallo and W Chandler. Then we got back Felton anyway, who at the time was the best player we lost in the deal. Seems like we didn't really give up that much, and what we did give up, we got a lot of it back.

Did we? Too many pages written on this subject but I have said before that team was not written in stone and there are other moves that could have been made. CP3 shook loose, Deron shook loose and Dwight. Im not going to go over every possibilty but I think things could have been done with a broader base of talent.

LOok at the N*ts, now im not saying Joe Johnson is a better player than Melo, and Johnsons contract is crazy but the guy is just 30 years old and he was had for basically nothing but N*ts cap space. Married next to Deron, i'd say Nets got Deron/Johnson for less than Melo. Granted, its two max contracts. Perhaps we can look at Melo/Amare in the same light as Amare came as a free agent but, if Amare is in steep decline or cannot exist effectively with Melo (the chemistry thing) then its not money/assets well spent.

Its been near 100 games since Melo has been here and I don't think we have seen evidence of the chemistry as we had hoped.

Bottom line is Nets have not played a game yet so we don't know how it turns out. Im just saying there are lots of things that can be done with assets then one big old starphuck. I think smaller moves can add up.

Our front court was suppose to be one of the best in the NBA. On paper it looked great but the combonation of our three does not add up. I hope I am wrong but if we continue this way then gave up too much didn't we?

I was thinking about that and how lucky we got getting Tyson with the amnesty. Otherwise it would be Melo and a gimpy Amare and not much else. Nets were able to keep Lopez and hump and sign deron, johnson, wallace & blatche!

WE were lucky to amnesty Billups as he would not have really added anyting this year. We would have had the cap space this past summer.

If Amare is toast, its gonna hurt.

Why does it hurt? We are still a playoff team without him. Yes he is another weapon that is feared when healthy and is needed in the playoff, but does he really make us that much better in the regular season? Melo got his Denver teams in the more competitive West to win 50+ games most seasons without anymore talent than we have now, minus Stoudemire. Chandler, Felton, Smith, etc should be enough. Then at the end of this season, Stoudemire is officially in the backhalf of his contract and goes from completely untradeable to much more tradeable. We trade him for a combo forward who can defend and stretch the offense and we are set.

IrishKnickFan wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

Nalod wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Nalod wrote:
Lakers traded Divac for rookie Kobe.

Trade a guy at the apex of his value for an asset to develope.

No guarantee but when it pans out its huge! Knicks don't take the right type of gamble.

Paid too much for Marbury and he was a disaster.

Dice trade was awful but at least you had a guy healthy for a brief shining moment (preseason). Price was too high.

We could have kept Camby and drafted Amare!

Melo for two no. 1 picks and 4 starters. Yes, melo is abonafide star but was the cost worth it? I agree with walsh and don't like the deal.

Im hoping I am wrong.

Draft picks were going to be low anyways. 4 starters? Chandler and Mozgov were only spot starters. Gallinari and Chandler were due for pay days and are now making combined what Melo makes. We lost Felton, but got back Billups to replace him. It was this move that freed up enough room to get Tyson Chandler. Then we didn't have to overpay Gallo and W Chandler. Then we got back Felton anyway, who at the time was the best player we lost in the deal. Seems like we didn't really give up that much, and what we did give up, we got a lot of it back.

Did we? Too many pages written on this subject but I have said before that team was not written in stone and there are other moves that could have been made. CP3 shook loose, Deron shook loose and Dwight. Im not going to go over every possibilty but I think things could have been done with a broader base of talent.

LOok at the N*ts, now im not saying Joe Johnson is a better player than Melo, and Johnsons contract is crazy but the guy is just 30 years old and he was had for basically nothing but N*ts cap space. Married next to Deron, i'd say Nets got Deron/Johnson for less than Melo. Granted, its two max contracts. Perhaps we can look at Melo/Amare in the same light as Amare came as a free agent but, if Amare is in steep decline or cannot exist effectively with Melo (the chemistry thing) then its not money/assets well spent.

Its been near 100 games since Melo has been here and I don't think we have seen evidence of the chemistry as we had hoped.

Bottom line is Nets have not played a game yet so we don't know how it turns out. Im just saying there are lots of things that can be done with assets then one big old starphuck. I think smaller moves can add up.

Our front court was suppose to be one of the best in the NBA. On paper it looked great but the combonation of our three does not add up. I hope I am wrong but if we continue this way then gave up too much didn't we?

I was thinking about that and how lucky we got getting Tyson with the amnesty. Otherwise it would be Melo and a gimpy Amare and not much else. Nets were able to keep Lopez and hump and sign deron, johnson, wallace & blatche!

No. We would/should have amnestied Amare this past summer or next summer and gotten a real star. Howard, CP3, DWil ...

And, we would have had money to sign a second guy in the 10-15 million range. Now Tyson is essentially costing us more than 30 million in cap space being that he is piggybacking amare.

This is not a knock on Tyson. He is worth what he got even though no other teams made him an offer other than Golden State.

Very good point man . I love tyson but i agree we should have amnestied Amare. His contract along with his injuries are killing us

Thanks :-)

Nalod wrote:The Mavs and Cuban keep stringing along a decent team keeping cap space.

Not saying its working but its a plan. Eventually they'll land someone if they keep at it.

Cube is pretty competitive and the Mavs are not contending but I admire the dicipline to not resign Tyson.

Agreed. Might have been the wrong move being that they did not land the big fish - time will tell.

Cuban certainly would not have signed him AND wasted the amnesty if he had Amare on his team. NO WAY!!!

3G4G wrote:

IrishKnickFan wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

Nalod wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Nalod wrote:
Lakers traded Divac for rookie Kobe.

Trade a guy at the apex of his value for an asset to develope.

No guarantee but when it pans out its huge! Knicks don't take the right type of gamble.

Paid too much for Marbury and he was a disaster.

Dice trade was awful but at least you had a guy healthy for a brief shining moment (preseason). Price was too high.

We could have kept Camby and drafted Amare!

Melo for two no. 1 picks and 4 starters. Yes, melo is abonafide star but was the cost worth it? I agree with walsh and don't like the deal.

Im hoping I am wrong.

Draft picks were going to be low anyways. 4 starters? Chandler and Mozgov were only spot starters. Gallinari and Chandler were due for pay days and are now making combined what Melo makes. We lost Felton, but got back Billups to replace him. It was this move that freed up enough room to get Tyson Chandler. Then we didn't have to overpay Gallo and W Chandler. Then we got back Felton anyway, who at the time was the best player we lost in the deal. Seems like we didn't really give up that much, and what we did give up, we got a lot of it back.

Did we? Too many pages written on this subject but I have said before that team was not written in stone and there are other moves that could have been made. CP3 shook loose, Deron shook loose and Dwight. Im not going to go over every possibilty but I think things could have been done with a broader base of talent.

LOok at the N*ts, now im not saying Joe Johnson is a better player than Melo, and Johnsons contract is crazy but the guy is just 30 years old and he was had for basically nothing but N*ts cap space. Married next to Deron, i'd say Nets got Deron/Johnson for less than Melo. Granted, its two max contracts. Perhaps we can look at Melo/Amare in the same light as Amare came as a free agent but, if Amare is in steep decline or cannot exist effectively with Melo (the chemistry thing) then its not money/assets well spent.

Its been near 100 games since Melo has been here and I don't think we have seen evidence of the chemistry as we had hoped.

Bottom line is Nets have not played a game yet so we don't know how it turns out. Im just saying there are lots of things that can be done with assets then one big old starphuck. I think smaller moves can add up.

Our front court was suppose to be one of the best in the NBA. On paper it looked great but the combonation of our three does not add up. I hope I am wrong but if we continue this way then gave up too much didn't we?

I was thinking about that and how lucky we got getting Tyson with the amnesty. Otherwise it would be Melo and a gimpy Amare and not much else. Nets were able to keep Lopez and hump and sign deron, johnson, wallace & blatche!

No. We would/should have amnestied Amare this past summer or next summer and gotten a real star. Howard, CP3, DWil ...

And, we would have had money to sign a second guy in the 10-15 million range. Now Tyson is essentially costing us more than 30 million in cap space being that he is piggybacking amare.

This is not a knock on Tyson. He is worth what he got even though no other teams made him an offer other than Golden State.

Very good point man . I love tyson but i agree we should have amnestied Amare. His contract along with his injuries are killing us

Or even kept Billups and let his contract expire using the cap room to sign players like

Courtney Lee/Mayo/Lou Williams/Blatche/Nick Young/Asik/Scola/Terry/Roy/Kaman/Beasley/Dragic/Dorrell Wright..... etc etc

I hate making moves that restrict or eliminate all of our flexibility

Yes. If we kept Billups, we could have let him expire and signed a myriad of players. We could have then decided if Amare should be amnestied. DRIVERS SEAT.

Knixkik wrote:

Nalod wrote:
Lakers traded Divac for rookie Kobe.

Trade a guy at the apex of his value for an asset to develope.

No guarantee but when it pans out its huge! Knicks don't take the right type of gamble.

Paid too much for Marbury and he was a disaster.

Dice trade was awful but at least you had a guy healthy for a brief shining moment (preseason). Price was too high.

We could have kept Camby and drafted Amare!

Melo for two no. 1 picks and 4 starters. Yes, melo is abonafide star but was the cost worth it? I agree with walsh and don't like the deal.

Im hoping I am wrong.

Draft picks were going to be low anyways. 4 starters? Chandler and Mozgov were only spot starters. Gallinari and Chandler were due for pay days and are now making combined what Melo makes. We lost Felton, but got back Billups to replace him. It was this move that freed up enough room to get Tyson Chandler. Then we didn't have to overpay Gallo and W Chandler. Then we got back Felton anyway, who at the time was the best player we lost in the deal. Seems like we didn't really give up that much, and what we did give up, we got a lot of it back.

Cmon, Uncle Nalod.

When will this line of reasoning ever end? Gallo, Chandler, Mozgov. These people are not starters anywhere except China and/or at the Olympics. Two low #1 picks, who, based on your other threads about how

the Knicks don't take the right type of gamble

Please tell me a story about how Melo's not worth that 3 million that was doled out. It sounds better.