F500ONE wrote:

VCoug wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:I though outlaw was apart of the Acy/ ellington trade.

Holy crap, I completely forgot there was a 2nd trade.

That was the first trade so Phil managed to

Blow both your minds

No, that was the second trade. Tyson was the first trade.

franco12 wrote:I'd be all for giving him a shot here.

Nothing to lose, and a great opportunity for someone like him to come in and get extended time.

Its like the rest of our season is one long play of garbage time.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/AlexKennedyNBA/status/553302729779871745

CrushAlot wrote:

F500ONE wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/AlexKennedyNBA/status/553302729779871745

Lets hope he clears waivers so that the Knicks can sign him.

Who should Phil cut or trade if he can to sign him

I don't mind giving the kid a look

F500ONE wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

F500ONE wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/AlexKennedyNBA/status/553302729779871745

Lets hope he clears waivers so that the Knicks can sign him.

Who should Phil cut or trade if he can to sign him

I don't mind giving the kid a look

BRIGGS wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:At this point we have 3 PGs and Galloway, a combo guard, who the Knicks want to play PG at some point.

Prigioni and Calderon are "bridge" PGs at best, who might not be on the team at this point if we could get something for them.

Still not sure how Phil and Fisher feel about Larkin, and whether Larkin would want to remain on the Knicks if he has a decent run the rest of the year.

Jackson likes PGs who have some range on their shot, and people are saying Wolters lacks this. I definitely don't know what Phil/Fisher think about Wolters. I have not seen enough of him to know whether he is someone we should take a chance on, although I know there are guys around here who like him.

My guess is that Phil passes on Wolters, but I would sign him to a 10 day contract (If we can) and give him some extended time on the floor to see what he has. Cut down the minutes Calderon and Prigioni get and try to see what the younger players can do. Have a rotation where Galloway, Larkin, and Wolters are, on a rotational basis, guaranteed one 30 minute game every 3 games. If there is another PG or SG out there I would do the same thing if we did not take Wolters.

We should be playing like we are in an extended exhibition season.

It would be a shame if we kept 37 year old Prigs who we only owe 200k to next year rather than taking a shot at Wolters. Hey its up to them. It would be nice to have a tall PG who can play. Wouldnt take a an NBA guy with 20 years experience to figure out who has more talent between Prigs and Wolters. heck IF Langston even came close to Nate's # Id be shocked. Other than long range shooting--Nate's a better player from the 1 guard. Good defense too.

CrushAlot wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:At this point we have 3 PGs and Galloway, a combo guard, who the Knicks want to play PG at some point.

Prigioni and Calderon are "bridge" PGs at best, who might not be on the team at this point if we could get something for them.

Still not sure how Phil and Fisher feel about Larkin, and whether Larkin would want to remain on the Knicks if he has a decent run the rest of the year.

Jackson likes PGs who have some range on their shot, and people are saying Wolters lacks this. I definitely don't know what Phil/Fisher think about Wolters. I have not seen enough of him to know whether he is someone we should take a chance on, although I know there are guys around here who like him.

My guess is that Phil passes on Wolters, but I would sign him to a 10 day contract (If we can) and give him some extended time on the floor to see what he has. Cut down the minutes Calderon and Prigioni get and try to see what the younger players can do. Have a rotation where Galloway, Larkin, and Wolters are, on a rotational basis, guaranteed one 30 minute game every 3 games. If there is another PG or SG out there I would do the same thing if we did not take Wolters.

We should be playing like we are in an extended exhibition season.

It would be a shame if we kept 37 year old Prigs who we only owe 200k to next year rather than taking a shot at Wolters. Hey its up to them. It would be nice to have a tall PG who can play. Wouldnt take a an NBA guy with 20 years experience to figure out who has more talent between Prigs and Wolters. heck IF Langston even came close to Nate's # Id be shocked. Other than long range shooting--Nate's a better player from the 1 guard. Good defense too.

Wow. He is a great ball handler. I am sold. Its like getting a free first round pick. Make it happen Phil.

As for waivers... as the team with the worst record don't we get the first shot at him, or is the order based on last year?

Would definitely take a shot at him. Phil should like his size at the position- 6'3.5" without shoes, and if he is a decent defender I can't see why we would not give him a look if we can.

F500ONE wrote:I count at least 15 players on the roster

Who got waived from the Cleveland deal

everyone

F500ONE wrote:I count at least 15 players on the roster

Who got waived from the Cleveland deal

I might suspect there is more to AMare all of sudden sitting. I'd like to think he can be traded and we get some benefit.
ALso read he'll be treated with utmost resepct as he has been a "good knick"!

Nalod wrote:
I'd drop Larkin if he is not part of the future. By now the coach's and Phil would know.
I prefer to move Priggy but we made promises. Be good if he could get to Nets and not move his family.

I might suspect there is more to AMare all of sudden sitting. I'd like to think he can be traded and we get some benefit.
ALso read he'll be treated with utmost resepct as he has been a "good knick"!

Larkin's not going to be here next year anyway, we might as well drop him for someone who we might want to keep.