loweyecue wrote:foosballnick wrote:loweyecue wrote:foosballnick wrote:loweyecue wrote:foosballnick wrote:Jmpasq wrote:I would take Pierce or Garnett over the pieces we signed
The question is not weather you would take these players, but would you trade three first round picks and give up a couple more players to get them? This thread seems to really be about being pissed off that many are placing us behind the Nets.......and the media (and many Knicks fans) talking up how good of a move this is for the Nets.
The issue (at least for me) is not how the Knicks are ranked for the upcoming season. It's that since Proko and the Nyets came to town, everyone seems to have lost all objectivity and turns a blind eye to the fact that they have made some really bad moves. They moved a significant amount of assets for guys who will retire after 2 years and who in the past two seasons have been on steady declines. This is not to say the Knicks made great moves so far. We continue to be very hampered by Amare's contract and injuries in particular.
Well maybe we believe Paul Pierce and Garnett on a decline for the last two years are still 4 times as good as Bargnani on the decline for the last two years. Or Rose coming back from injury is by snd far a better addition to the BULLS' core than Brgnani who has for two years failed to come back from injury is to ours.
You're entitled to believe what you want to believe.
If you are equating that the decline of Pierce and Garnett due to age is equatable to a drop in productivity of a 10 year younger AB due to injury......you lose credibility.
I lose credibility? Because I am looking at the results and you are projecting from your own faith based belief system? Age is not the only criteria to be considered when assessing the probability of a full and complete comeback. The dude had two years to do it and couldn't the other two aren't coming back from anything I would take Garnett over Bargs any day if the week for a two year deal right now.
Deflect all you want - you have not addressed the question/issue. The Nets traded 3 First Round picks in this deal and many (including you) are complimenting them for the acquisition. My guess is that if the Knicks made the same move.....trading 3 Future First round picks and a bunch of role players for KG, PP and Terry, most (including you) would be blasting the move.
So the question is not weather you would take Garnett over Bargs......It is, would you trade Bargs and a First rounder (perhaps more) to obtain Garnett right now?
That was not the question with which the thread was started. The thread was created because nixluva felt people valued the Nets, Bulls and Pacers over the Knicks unfairly. The reason people do that is each team got better this offseason.
We just traded a bunch if picks and role players for Bargs ( role player) and yes I didn't like the trade. You are right I wouldn't like that trade for KG/ PP either. But that is different discussion.
KG/PP have more value for two years than Bargs IMO, so if we traded the same exact package for them, I would be much less displeased than I am now.
I think Nixluva is saying that the Knicks also got better.....but people tend to disrespect the Knicks, and hence, focus on potential negatives, instead of potential positives. For some reason, those same people focus on potential positives for teams like the Nets, often overlooking the potential negatives.
You have provided an example of that behavior. You have classified the Knicks as giving up a bunch of picks and role players for a role player. Someone who looked at things from a different perspective might say that the Knicks gave up a late first rounder a very late 2nd rounder and another 2nd....one guy who did not play at all, and another who's skills were severely exposed in the last two playoff years.......for a guy who is a good offensive threat and starter when healthy. If he plays well the Knicks will have an asset to play or deal, if he does not play well, the Knicks get a little more extra cap space a year early.
The Nets have been portrayed as getting two HOF players and former stars who will help lead them to challenge for a championship. Some have conveniently forgotten that there are both short and long term implications to a trade. The Nets current salary will be at 100 mil....equaling an 80 million luxury tax. They traded first rounders in 2014, 2016 and 2018 in this trade. They also gave Boston the right to take the better 1st Round choice in 2017 by swapping picks. Pierce is only signed through next year, so there is no guarantee he will be back. The Nets salary next year is at roughly 80 mil with 8 guys (not including Blatche who has a player option). The following year, the Nets are at roughly 65 mil with four guys (aging Deron, and old JJ included). They better hope that they win this year......because it seems like they will likely be a bottom feeder in a few years.
