reub wrote:No to trading our young kids and future draft picks for a high scoring, ball-hogging, no defense kind of guy. Haven't we learned our lesson yet?

No I don't think we have, NY is the definition of the perpetual starfukk. The next shiny object always wins. Because THIS time it will be different.

knicks1248 wrote:I like this idea

THREE TEAM TRADE: DETAILS:

Knicks Receive: Kyrie Irving, (Fillers – Cole Aldrich + Nemanja Bjelica)

Cavaliers Receive: Carmelo Anthony & Andrew Wiggins

Timberwolves Receive: Kevin Love (Possibly Frank Ntilikina)

Seriously, which team says no to this proposed deal?

This would be a great deal for the Knicks, and outright horrible deal for the Cavs and a deal that makes no sense at all for the Timberwolves.

Whomever wrote this article did a lousy job of ignoring some big issues. TWolves spent good money on reupping Gorgui Dieng and getting Taj Gibson in FA. So the base methodology is to add another power forward, esp one that has problems on defense? This also saps their wing depth, which was the biggest concern when they signed Jamal Crawford. Anyone want a team pushing to contend to be injury away from Crawford starting in one of your wing positions? Loves salary also does not equalize out with Wiggins and Bjelica moving off the roster.

In order to take in a PF, the Wolves need to move Dieng, who is a good defender. So take in a bad defender and minus out a good one?

When LBJ walks this offseason, Love and Irving are still locked in. While it looks like Irving is going to be traded, the Cavs are just going to try to wear him out. A team of Love and Irving and Thompson and Korver is good enough to make the playoffs in the weakened East.
This scenario has them gutting both, then watching Melo opt out and LBJ leaving in the offseason. How does that help the Cavs in the future?

The Knicks would get Irving, only giving up Melo ( and the writer is wavering on if FrankN would go...sigh....)

If the Wolves are set to push now, even if they got FrankN, he's a rookie. What can they expect from a rookie? At least Wiggins is on an upwards developmental path now.

Not to mention, the Cavs would like to move Irving out of the East if possible. Also they need to address their problems at center in any trade. Which this trade scenario does not do.

If this trade was offered, sure, Knicks should take it. They gut the other two teams in this kind of deal. But no rational team is going to get gutted just so the Knicks can get Kyrie Irving.

Bonn1997 wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

EnySpree wrote:

smackeddog wrote:I'm relaxed about this because it ain't going to happen- melo won't agree to it because it would mean him either staying on a cavs team with no lebron or opting out of his last year and losing his bird rights.

Ironically, Melo will protect us from repeating the same mistake we made when we got him.

Nah don't do that. Memo ain't doing us any favors.... him only wanting to go to Houston and they expecting us to take back Ryan Anderson or Harkless and company is worse than the trade we did to get Melo.... Giving up old Melo and a draft pick for 25 year old Kyrie is the better deal for us.

It wouldn't be old Melo and a draft pick though- it would be old melo, Frank and probably 2 first round draft picks or at least one and a swap (which is almost as bad, as the Eddy Curry trade showed)

Eddy Curry and Kyrie are not comparable.

Obviously he's not saying the players are comparable. He's saying the deals would be equally crippling. When you consider that Kyrie might be on a $200 mil contract soon, I think he's right.

You got no production from Curry. You would get alot of production from Irving. Totally different situation.

The player production part was not the element that he was saying was analogous. The crippling overpaying is. Two separate issues. What we gave Curry was like paying $500K for a house worth $50K. If we're giving up lottery picks and giving Curry the super max soon, it's like paying 10 mil for a house worth $1 mil. Same concept - Just drastically different proportions.

Player production has to be the issue in regards to pay. Curry was paying a million for a 50k hut. Paying Kyrie, who already has proven he will perform, is like paying for the first house in a growing affluent neighborhood. His price may go up, it may stay the same, but it would take a total catastrophic failure for it to go down.

Hmmmm the his next contract will run from years 9 to 13 of his career and he's heavily dependent on athleticism. (And not many people get better once they stop playing with LeBron.) I don't see it as a stretch that things will go down. I know people like to fantasize that he's young and going to improve. But his career has been mostly a flat line for 6 years. No one knows what will happen. I think the most likely scenario is it stays flat for a bit and then goes down.

Bonn, the dude is 25.. are you really saying that is now too old?

Most people don't like to think this but statistically most players peak between 25 and 27 (depending on which metric you use). Then they stay flat for a while and have steep decline around age 30. That's the approximate norm though there are obviously exceptions.
Anyway, too old for what? I don't know exactly what you're asking. Too old to give up lottery picks for and in 2 years, a 5 year supermax or near supermax contract? Too old to assume there will be a sudden improvement after 6 years of a flat line in his career? Too old to even be in the league? It depends on what the question is.

I know you love the advance scouting metrics and stuff, but come on. So 5 years of production isn't good enough for you? What I am getting from you is even a plan of 25 yrs old or younger is too old. If you don't like Kyrie as a player fine. But this is a player that follows the Knicks plan, has a track record, and wants to be here. Like I said before, there are maybe 3-5 true cornerstone transcendent players in this league. Kyrie isn'tone of them but he is a damn good PG that is you can get without giving up KP, you need to strongly consider.

Comparing him to guys like Eddy, no matter what metric, is an insult. Kyrie is a better player, has a better track record, has a better attitude, and is just in a different league than Curry.

A deal to get Kyrie was also compared to the deal for Melo. Totally different. In the Melo deal we dealt all our youth for a guy entering his prime. Kyrie isn't there yet. He has at least 2 years before his prime.

You've attacked this deal on from multiple angles. I just dont think you like Irving.

I think you've misinterpreted what I've written. I do like Kyrie. He's good. I see him as a top 40 player, which means he's better than most of the guys on the court. I like him at the right price but I'm pretty sure we're going to overpay - either now or in 2 years, or both. I don't see him as being great enough to overpay for once, and definitely not twice.

So you are upset with the trade we might make? While I can understand that, if we were gonna overpay, i think we would have done that already. Even if it ends up being Melo, Frank and a pick (protected) I may be ok because in the end, all it is really costing us is 2 picks (Frankie and a future) since we have been talking getting table scraps for Melo this last month.

Bonn1997 wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

EnySpree wrote:

smackeddog wrote:I'm relaxed about this because it ain't going to happen- melo won't agree to it because it would mean him either staying on a cavs team with no lebron or opting out of his last year and losing his bird rights.

Ironically, Melo will protect us from repeating the same mistake we made when we got him.

Nah don't do that. Memo ain't doing us any favors.... him only wanting to go to Houston and they expecting us to take back Ryan Anderson or Harkless and company is worse than the trade we did to get Melo.... Giving up old Melo and a draft pick for 25 year old Kyrie is the better deal for us.

It wouldn't be old Melo and a draft pick though- it would be old melo, Frank and probably 2 first round draft picks or at least one and a swap (which is almost as bad, as the Eddy Curry trade showed)

Eddy Curry and Kyrie are not comparable.

Obviously he's not saying the players are comparable. He's saying the deals would be equally crippling. When you consider that Kyrie might be on a $200 mil contract soon, I think he's right.

You got no production from Curry. You would get alot of production from Irving. Totally different situation.

The player production part was not the element that he was saying was analogous. The crippling overpaying is. Two separate issues. What we gave Curry was like paying $500K for a house worth $50K. If we're giving up lottery picks and giving Curry the super max soon, it's like paying 10 mil for a house worth $1 mil. Same concept - Just drastically different proportions.

Player production has to be the issue in regards to pay. Curry was paying a million for a 50k hut. Paying Kyrie, who already has proven he will perform, is like paying for the first house in a growing affluent neighborhood. His price may go up, it may stay the same, but it would take a total catastrophic failure for it to go down.

This is the Knicks, if you look at the data total catastrophic failure is what we do, we are good at it. You guys are overvaluing what he does which is basically score.

What do you consider over value? I haven't seen anyone say give anything to get him. For the most part it is Melo and pick.

Melo plus a top 15 protected pick is a trade I'd do. I'd give that a solid B. I think it's going to cost WAY more than that though. Kyrie is younger and better than Melo and the Cavs have other trade partners to work with. We don't even know if Melo would go to Cleveland anyway.

I'd protect top 10 this year. If we had to include another pick in a few years I'd protect that one top 5. As I explained in the other post, Melo is a non factor to me as long as he accepts the trade. We are talking getting scraps for him now. This would be making the best out of a bad situation, imo.

smackeddog wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

EnySpree wrote:

smackeddog wrote:I'm relaxed about this because it ain't going to happen- melo won't agree to it because it would mean him either staying on a cavs team with no lebron or opting out of his last year and losing his bird rights.

Ironically, Melo will protect us from repeating the same mistake we made when we got him.

Nah don't do that. Memo ain't doing us any favors.... him only wanting to go to Houston and they expecting us to take back Ryan Anderson or Harkless and company is worse than the trade we did to get Melo.... Giving up old Melo and a draft pick for 25 year old Kyrie is the better deal for us.

It wouldn't be old Melo and a draft pick though- it would be old melo, Frank and probably 2 first round draft picks or at least one and a swap (which is almost as bad, as the Eddy Curry trade showed)

Eddy Curry and Kyrie are not comparable.

Obviously he's not saying the players are comparable. He's saying the deals would be equally crippling. When you consider that Kyrie might be on a $200 mil contract soon, I think he's right.

You got no production from Curry. You would get alot of production from Irving. Totally different situation.

The player production part was not the element that he was saying was analogous. The crippling overpaying is. Two separate issues. What we gave Curry was like paying $500K for a house worth $50K. If we're giving up lottery picks and giving Curry the super max soon, it's like paying 10 mil for a house worth $1 mil. Same concept - Just drastically different proportions.

Player production has to be the issue in regards to pay. Curry was paying a million for a 50k hut. Paying Kyrie, who already has proven he will perform, is like paying for the first house in a growing affluent neighborhood. His price may go up, it may stay the same, but it would take a total catastrophic failure for it to go down.

This is the Knicks, if you look at the data total catastrophic failure is what we do, we are good at it. You guys are overvaluing what he does which is basically score.

What do you consider over value? I haven't seen anyone say give anything to get him. For the most part it is Melo and pick.

Melo plus a top 15 protected pick is a trade I'd do. I'd give that a solid B. I think it's going to cost WAY more than that though. Kyrie is younger and better than Melo and the Cavs have other trade partners to work with. We don't even know if Melo would go to Cleveland anyway.

I'm sure the cavs would love to trade irving for an old Melo rental and a mid first round pick...

joec32033 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

EnySpree wrote:

smackeddog wrote:I'm relaxed about this because it ain't going to happen- melo won't agree to it because it would mean him either staying on a cavs team with no lebron or opting out of his last year and losing his bird rights.

Ironically, Melo will protect us from repeating the same mistake we made when we got him.

Nah don't do that. Memo ain't doing us any favors.... him only wanting to go to Houston and they expecting us to take back Ryan Anderson or Harkless and company is worse than the trade we did to get Melo.... Giving up old Melo and a draft pick for 25 year old Kyrie is the better deal for us.

It wouldn't be old Melo and a draft pick though- it would be old melo, Frank and probably 2 first round draft picks or at least one and a swap (which is almost as bad, as the Eddy Curry trade showed)

Eddy Curry and Kyrie are not comparable.

Obviously he's not saying the players are comparable. He's saying the deals would be equally crippling. When you consider that Kyrie might be on a $200 mil contract soon, I think he's right.

You got no production from Curry. You would get alot of production from Irving. Totally different situation.

The player production part was not the element that he was saying was analogous. The crippling overpaying is. Two separate issues. What we gave Curry was like paying $500K for a house worth $50K. If we're giving up lottery picks and giving Curry the super max soon, it's like paying 10 mil for a house worth $1 mil. Same concept - Just drastically different proportions.

Player production has to be the issue in regards to pay. Curry was paying a million for a 50k hut. Paying Kyrie, who already has proven he will perform, is like paying for the first house in a growing affluent neighborhood. His price may go up, it may stay the same, but it would take a total catastrophic failure for it to go down.

This is the Knicks, if you look at the data total catastrophic failure is what we do, we are good at it. You guys are overvaluing what he does which is basically score.

What do you consider over value? I haven't seen anyone say give anything to get him. For the most part it is Melo and pick.

Melo plus a top 15 protected pick is a trade I'd do. I'd give that a solid B. I think it's going to cost WAY more than that though. Kyrie is younger and better than Melo and the Cavs have other trade partners to work with. We don't even know if Melo would go to Cleveland anyway.

I'm sure the cavs would love to trade irving for an old Melo rental and a mid first round pick...

That was what I thought Joec meant initially. But now it sounds like he's talking about giving up 2 to 3 current (Frank) and potential future lottery picks. That's much more realistic in terms of what it would actually take but I wouldn't even consider it. It looks based on this like Kyrie wouldn't quite be able to get the crazy supermax since he doesn't have 10 years of experience.
https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2017/03/projecting-maximum-salary-contracts-for-201718.html
I think he'd be looking at 5 years, $177 mil (although that will obviously go up since salaries go up each year).

Woah.. never have I implied 3 picks. I said I would consider Melo, Frank and a pick in like 2019 or 2020.

I would also consider a pick in 2019 and 2021 with no Frank.

And Here is some outside the box thinking. Trade Melo to Houston however you can(3 way 4 waybwhatever) and use those assets/draft picks to Cavs for Melo. A package similar to that of Lee, that young center from Portland no one wants, a pick we get from Houston and a pick from us is a good deal.

There are ways to get this done, and honestly, I'm surprised no one has considered trading Melo first, then using those tradeable assets to get Kyrie.

Well that's potentially 2 lottery picks then since Frank is a lottery pick. Your proposal means that to keep Kyrie here long-term, the cost is going to be something like 2 possible lottery picks (perhaps 1 1st round pick with minimal protection and Frank) and close to $200 mil. I think that's way too much.

joec32033 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

EnySpree wrote:

smackeddog wrote:I'm relaxed about this because it ain't going to happen- melo won't agree to it because it would mean him either staying on a cavs team with no lebron or opting out of his last year and losing his bird rights.

Ironically, Melo will protect us from repeating the same mistake we made when we got him.

Nah don't do that. Memo ain't doing us any favors.... him only wanting to go to Houston and they expecting us to take back Ryan Anderson or Harkless and company is worse than the trade we did to get Melo.... Giving up old Melo and a draft pick for 25 year old Kyrie is the better deal for us.

It wouldn't be old Melo and a draft pick though- it would be old melo, Frank and probably 2 first round draft picks or at least one and a swap (which is almost as bad, as the Eddy Curry trade showed)

Eddy Curry and Kyrie are not comparable.

Obviously he's not saying the players are comparable. He's saying the deals would be equally crippling. When you consider that Kyrie might be on a $200 mil contract soon, I think he's right.

You got no production from Curry. You would get alot of production from Irving. Totally different situation.

The player production part was not the element that he was saying was analogous. The crippling overpaying is. Two separate issues. What we gave Curry was like paying $500K for a house worth $50K. If we're giving up lottery picks and giving Curry the super max soon, it's like paying 10 mil for a house worth $1 mil. Same concept - Just drastically different proportions.

Player production has to be the issue in regards to pay. Curry was paying a million for a 50k hut. Paying Kyrie, who already has proven he will perform, is like paying for the first house in a growing affluent neighborhood. His price may go up, it may stay the same, but it would take a total catastrophic failure for it to go down.

This is the Knicks, if you look at the data total catastrophic failure is what we do, we are good at it. You guys are overvaluing what he does which is basically score.

What do you consider over value? I haven't seen anyone say give anything to get him. For the most part it is Melo and pick.

Melo plus a top 15 protected pick is a trade I'd do. I'd give that a solid B. I think it's going to cost WAY more than that though. Kyrie is younger and better than Melo and the Cavs have other trade partners to work with. We don't even know if Melo would go to Cleveland anyway.

I'm sure the cavs would love to trade irving for an old Melo rental and a mid first round pick...

That was what I thought Joec meant initially. But now it sounds like he's talking about giving up 2 to 3 current (Frank) and potential future lottery picks. That's much more realistic in terms of what it would actually take but I wouldn't even consider it. It looks based on this like Kyrie wouldn't quite be able to get the crazy supermax since he doesn't have 10 years of experience.
https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2017/03/projecting-maximum-salary-contracts-for-201718.html
I think he'd be looking at 5 years, $177 mil (although that will obviously go up since salaries go up each year).

Woah.. never have I implied 3 picks. I said I would consider Melo, Frank and a pick in like 2019 or 2020.

I would also consider a pick in 2019 and 2021 with no Frank.

And Here is some outside the box thinking. Trade Melo to Houston however you can(3 way 4 waybwhatever) and use those assets/draft picks to Cavs for Melo. A package similar to that of Lee, that young center from Portland no one wants, a pick we get from Houston and a pick from us is a good deal.

There are ways to get this done, and honestly, I'm surprised no one has considered trading Melo first, then using those tradeable assets to get Kyrie.

Well that's potentially 2 lottery picks then since Frank is a lottery pick. Your proposal means that to keep Kyrie here long-term, the cost is going to be something like 2 possible lottery picks (perhaps 1 1st round pick with minimal protection and Frank) and close to $200 mil. I think that's way too much.

Contract cost is null. Do you plan on paying these guys in hopes and dreams? It costs money to have good players. Your reasoning says it will cost the Knicks 1 #4 pick and $150 mil to keep Porzingis when he is a FA.

meloshouldgo wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

reub wrote:No to trading our young kids and future draft picks for a high scoring, ball-hogging, no defense kind of guy. Haven't we learned our lesson yet?

No I don't think we have, NY is the definition of the perpetual starfukk. The next shiny object always wins. Because THIS time it will be different.

I hate that stupid "starfukk" term. Anytime someone disagrees with a trade it's a starfukk. It went from being a term that meant trading for old past their prime names because it make a splash to now apparently meaning trading for any star because it's not homegrown talent just because someone happens to not like a trade. It's turned into the UK version of "Yo momma". It's so "fukking" lame.

You can disagree with it all you like. To me anytime we overpay for one dimensional players who can only do one thing will and are "all star" or worse "all star potential" it's starfukking. It's not about the age of the player we are trading for it's about the skillset and the fit and whether we are overpaying for him or not. In my opinion Kyrie can do only one thing well, he doesn't fit our chosen path of young athletic players that play good defense he is at the outside limit of the age range we are supposedly looking at and giving up draft picks and or Frank would basically mean we are repeating the Melo trade. So in my opinion it's just another dumb starfukk and that's what I am going to call it

Bonn1997 wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

EnySpree wrote:

smackeddog wrote:I'm relaxed about this because it ain't going to happen- melo won't agree to it because it would mean him either staying on a cavs team with no lebron or opting out of his last year and losing his bird rights.

Ironically, Melo will protect us from repeating the same mistake we made when we got him.

Nah don't do that. Memo ain't doing us any favors.... him only wanting to go to Houston and they expecting us to take back Ryan Anderson or Harkless and company is worse than the trade we did to get Melo.... Giving up old Melo and a draft pick for 25 year old Kyrie is the better deal for us.

It wouldn't be old Melo and a draft pick though- it would be old melo, Frank and probably 2 first round draft picks or at least one and a swap (which is almost as bad, as the Eddy Curry trade showed)

Eddy Curry and Kyrie are not comparable.

Obviously he's not saying the players are comparable. He's saying the deals would be equally crippling. When you consider that Kyrie might be on a $200 mil contract soon, I think he's right.

You got no production from Curry. You would get alot of production from Irving. Totally different situation.

The player production part was not the element that he was saying was analogous. The crippling overpaying is. Two separate issues. What we gave Curry was like paying $500K for a house worth $50K. If we're giving up lottery picks and giving Curry the super max soon, it's like paying 10 mil for a house worth $1 mil. Same concept - Just drastically different proportions.

Player production has to be the issue in regards to pay. Curry was paying a million for a 50k hut. Paying Kyrie, who already has proven he will perform, is like paying for the first house in a growing affluent neighborhood. His price may go up, it may stay the same, but it would take a total catastrophic failure for it to go down.

This is the Knicks, if you look at the data total catastrophic failure is what we do, we are good at it. You guys are overvaluing what he does which is basically score.

What do you consider over value? I haven't seen anyone say give anything to get him. For the most part it is Melo and pick.

Melo plus a top 15 protected pick is a trade I'd do. I'd give that a solid B. I think it's going to cost WAY more than that though. Kyrie is younger and better than Melo and the Cavs have other trade partners to work with. We don't even know if Melo would go to Cleveland anyway.

I'm sure the cavs would love to trade irving for an old Melo rental and a mid first round pick...

That was what I thought Joec meant initially. But now it sounds like he's talking about giving up 2 to 3 current (Frank) and potential future lottery picks. That's much more realistic in terms of what it would actually take but I wouldn't even consider it. It looks based on this like Kyrie wouldn't quite be able to get the crazy supermax since he doesn't have 10 years of experience.
https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2017/03/projecting-maximum-salary-contracts-for-201718.html
I think he'd be looking at 5 years, $177 mil (although that will obviously go up since salaries go up each year).

Woah.. never have I implied 3 picks. I said I would consider Melo, Frank and a pick in like 2019 or 2020.

I would also consider a pick in 2019 and 2021 with no Frank.

And Here is some outside the box thinking. Trade Melo to Houston however you can(3 way 4 waybwhatever) and use those assets/draft picks to Cavs for Melo. A package similar to that of Lee, that young center from Portland no one wants, a pick we get from Houston and a pick from us is a good deal.

There are ways to get this done, and honestly, I'm surprised no one has considered trading Melo first, then using those tradeable assets to get Kyrie.

Well that's potentially 2 lottery picks then since Frank is a lottery pick. Your proposal means that to keep Kyrie here long-term, the cost is going to be something like 2 possible lottery picks (perhaps 1 1st round pick with minimal protection and Frank) and close to $200 mil. I think that's way too much.

Contract cost is null. Do you plan on paying these guys in hopes and dreams? It costs money to have good players. Your reasoning says it will cost the Knicks 1 #4 pick and $150 mil to keep Porzingis when he is a FA.

Kyrie's contract would be about 1.5 times or even double what KP's contract could be. And there's a difference between giving up a pick (and improving a conference rival's future) vs. using a pick on a player. There's also a stronger likelihood that KP will improve for many reasons than there is that Kyrie will.
That said, if KP's performance stays flat for the next 1 1/2 years, I'd hate to give him a 6 figure extension. I'd probably still do it but I'd listen to other team's offers.

So at 25 you don't think Kyrie can get any better? Eventually you have to pay these guys. Somehow GS got the most selfish guys ever to give up money for winning.

You also don't know that draft pick is improving anything. There is a chance they can improve.

Look, I'm gonna be honest. I probably would have traded KP to Boston to get picks and players. I also would have fired Hornacek already and gave Perry a clean slate to work.

That said if KP's attitude changes I am totally cool with keeping him at this point, but he needs to prove he is a dedicated to the game as a guy like Dirk was. He sure seems to love everything about playing in MY. I want him to love playing.