Bonn1997 wrote:But why wouldn't you trade the guy that our failed team was built around and that has more trade value than Tyson?

Face of franchise generates $.

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:But why wouldn't you trade the guy that our failed team was built around and that has more trade value than Tyson?

So just because we failed to build around him this season means he is not a player you can build around? Was Lebron not a player you could build around in Cleveland since they fell short too?

NYKBocker wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:But why wouldn't you trade the guy that our failed team was built around and that has more trade value than Tyson?

So just because we failed to build around him this season means he is not a player you can build around? Was Lebron not a player you could build around in Cleveland since they fell short too?

2 Different players. One is a creator that makes everybody around him better. The other an elite scoring machine. Easier to build around LeDouche.

Lebron is the best in the league, but i just think that different players means you build around them different, that's all. As Knicks fans we need to stand behind our top guys instead of constantly trying to trade them. It's easy to forget how far we have come with them in terms of respectable franchise compared to the past 10 years.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:But why wouldn't you trade the guy that our failed team was built around and that has more trade value than Tyson?

So just because we failed to build around him this season means he is not a player you can build around? Was Lebron not a player you could build around in Cleveland since they fell short too?

Falling short is not the same as failing. Also, Cleveland didn't surround Lebron with a $60 mil supporting cast. And, note that the failure would be 3 straight post-seasons (not "this season").

Fail or not, i would rather be a playoff team than blow it up again and be back where we were the past 12 years.

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:But why wouldn't you trade the guy that our failed team was built around and that has more trade value than Tyson?

So just because we failed to build around him this season means he is not a player you can build around? Was Lebron not a player you could build around in Cleveland since they fell short too?

Falling short is not the same as failing. Also, Cleveland didn't surround Lebron with a $60 mil supporting cast. And, note that the failure would be 3 straight post-seasons (not "this season").

Fail or not, i would rather be a playoff team than blow it up again and be back where we were the past 12 years.

Knixkik wrote:

NYKBocker wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:But why wouldn't you trade the guy that our failed team was built around and that has more trade value than Tyson?

So just because we failed to build around him this season means he is not a player you can build around? Was Lebron not a player you could build around in Cleveland since they fell short too?

2 Different players. One is a creator that makes everybody around him better. The other an elite scoring machine. Easier to build around LeDouche.

Lebron is the best in the league, but i just think that different players means you build around them different, that's all. As Knicks fans we need to stand behind our top guys instead of constantly trying to trade them. It's easy to forget how far we have come with them in terms of respectable franchise compared to the past 10 years.

Nonsense. We will continue to be ridiculed and laughed off until we make some real noise in the playoffs. Teams are NOT scared of the Knicks. We haven't done anything yet, and we still have not won a single playoff series in the period of "resurgence" you mention.

Dagger wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

NYKBocker wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:But why wouldn't you trade the guy that our failed team was built around and that has more trade value than Tyson?

So just because we failed to build around him this season means he is not a player you can build around? Was Lebron not a player you could build around in Cleveland since they fell short too?

2 Different players. One is a creator that makes everybody around him better. The other an elite scoring machine. Easier to build around LeDouche.

Lebron is the best in the league, but i just think that different players means you build around them different, that's all. As Knicks fans we need to stand behind our top guys instead of constantly trying to trade them. It's easy to forget how far we have come with them in terms of respectable franchise compared to the past 10 years.

Nonsense. We will continue to be ridiculed and laughed off until we make some real noise in the playoffs. Teams are NOT scared of the Knicks. We haven't done anything yet, and we still have not won a single playoff series in the period of "resurgence" you mention.

As of right now we are a playoff team, and up until a few weeks ago were considered by many fans and media a contender. Can any of those things be said over the past 10-12 years since Melo arrived? We have a long ways to go, but it feels good having the 3rd best record in the EC, because it's been a long time.

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:But why wouldn't you trade the guy that our failed team was built around and that has more trade value than Tyson?

So just because we failed to build around him this season means he is not a player you can build around? Was Lebron not a player you could build around in Cleveland since they fell short too?

Falling short is not the same as failing. Also, Cleveland didn't surround Lebron with a $60 mil supporting cast. And, note that the failure would be 3 straight post-seasons (not "this season").

Fail or not, i would rather be a playoff team than blow it up again and be back where we were the past 12 years.

Houston is a good example of how that is not necessary. If you look at the right information, you can rebuild and be a good team at the same time.

It's absolutely true, but they were bad for a long time as well, and still are just a mediocre team until they land another big fish. That process is long, drawn out, and there are few teams that get it right, but you are absolutely right that it can be done in the right circumstances with some luck. Not sure if we have the luck we need as a franchise to do it successfully. Just look at all the other failed cases.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:But why wouldn't you trade the guy that our failed team was built around and that has more trade value than Tyson?

So just because we failed to build around him this season means he is not a player you can build around? Was Lebron not a player you could build around in Cleveland since they fell short too?

Falling short is not the same as failing. Also, Cleveland didn't surround Lebron with a $60 mil supporting cast. And, note that the failure would be 3 straight post-seasons (not "this season").

Fail or not, i would rather be a playoff team than blow it up again and be back where we were the past 12 years.

Houston is a good example of how that is not necessary. If you look at the right information, you can rebuild and be a good team at the same time.

It's absolutely true, but they were bad for a long time as well, and still are just a mediocre team until they land another big fish. That process is long, drawn out, and there are few teams that get it right, but you are absolutely right that it can be done in the right circumstances with some luck. Not sure if we have the luck we need as a franchise to do it successfully. Just look at all the other failed cases.

When were they bad for a long time? In the past 10 years, they've had only one sub .500 season.

I guess it really hasn't been that long, but they haven't been a playoff team since losing Yao and TMac, let's put it that way. I'm not a fan of blowing it up and being .500 team again with no way of getting high draft picks, and fewer good free agents coming on the market. I am content trying to improve our chances in the playoffs by upgrading the talent around our core group. So few teams rebuild successfully, and most fail and are bad for a long time.

BRIGGS wrote:If ic ould remove Tyson and parlay that into a young 6-11 250 pound C/PF like Jason Thompson and their pick with prognostication that it was Kelly Olynck)

that alone would give me

7-1 245 PF 21 years old
6-11 250 C/PF 27 years old

One who is proven he can play in the NBA the other I think has the chance to be a star in the NBA.

On the bottom side we rebuild our guard positions

Wolters is so undervalued its beyond belief. How many 6-4 long armed PGs are there in the NBA that have HIGh bball IQ premier ballhandling skills like him with his keen passing and scoring abilities under rated defensive abilities rebounding doesnt turn it over etc...

We should be able to get this guy. I see us picking around 21-24. I would promise him so quick that his head spun and shut him down.

Spend 1mm for a second and if Erick Green is there--we haev a 6th man for the future.

Next we have what will be close to mLE money and I think we can acquire both Mosgov and Webster. Stars NO. Team play fit YES.

Its a multi dimensional make over but its no rebuild--its a retool to a younger team with more depth and skills. It can be done

I just don't understand why you trade a player for players who have a very slim chance of ever being as good as the one you're trading. It makes no sense. I leave well enough alone and target other areas to improve.

callmened wrote:Once again ill state that this core will not be broken up until spring of 2014 at the earliest. I agree with nalod who says that starbuzz is enough to generate money. Plus we have an above average team. Once....oops i mean if...this team fails, theyll simply blame all the injuries. Hopefully theyll put other younger players around the core. Briggs i know you know youre bball and one can argue with ur thinking to trade tyson but it simply wont happen....were "stuck"

It's one thing if there really was a better option. We are stuck moreso because the open market is never going to be the same, not because of the players we have on our roster. Blowing it up is pointless when the only option is to replace your current players with worse players. People get so fixated by "flexibility" that they forget being flexible is pointless when they are limited options. Briggs at least puts examples to his ideas, but other than that i don't agree with the way of thinking. Flexiblity works for about 3 teams each decade when the circumstances are ideal. It's essentially plying the lottery.