[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

we got SOOOOO hosed in the QRich deal. He's damaged goods
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 4 of 5 « First‹ Previous 2  3  4  5 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
12/30/2005  9:58 AM
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Allanfan20:

the Knicks switch the 2007 pick with Chicago, unless of course, we have a better record.
Yup; that's why we can't have the #1 pick (unless there's a trade) but can pick anywhere from 2 to 30

Yeah and technically San Antonio can lose enough to make the lottery this year and we'd have a lottery pick but it's not going to happen so why talk about it like it's a possibility? Oh wait, you're just spinning. Nevermind.

Without a trade, it IS going to happen that we'll be picking anywhere from 2 to 30 like I said
AUTOADVERT
islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
12/30/2005  10:11 AM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Allanfan20:

the Knicks switch the 2007 pick with Chicago, unless of course, we have a better record.
Yup; that's why we can't have the #1 pick (unless there's a trade) but can pick anywhere from 2 to 30

Yeah and technically San Antonio can lose enough to make the lottery this year and we'd have a lottery pick but it's not going to happen so why talk about it like it's a possibility? Oh wait, you're just spinning. Nevermind.

Without a trade, it IS going to happen that we'll be picking anywhere from 2 to 30 like I said

San Antonio IS going to lose enough to make the lottery this year and we're going to get their lottery pick?!? Umm ok.
If it didn’t work in Phoenix with Nash and Stoutamire... it’s just not a winning formula. It’s an entertaining formula, but not a winning one. - Derek Harper talking about D'Antoni's System
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
12/30/2005  1:21 PM
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Allanfan20:

the Knicks switch the 2007 pick with Chicago, unless of course, we have a better record.
Yup; that's why we can't have the #1 pick (unless there's a trade) but can pick anywhere from 2 to 30

Yeah and technically San Antonio can lose enough to make the lottery this year and we'd have a lottery pick but it's not going to happen so why talk about it like it's a possibility? Oh wait, you're just spinning. Nevermind.

Without a trade, it IS going to happen that we'll be picking anywhere from 2 to 30 like I said

San Antonio IS going to lose enough to make the lottery this year and we're going to get their lottery pick?!? Umm ok.

You're talking about something different. I thought you used the SA analogy to somehow prove my statement false that the Knicks would be picking between 2 and 30 in 2007. But if you agree with my original statement, then what was the point of the SA analogy?
jaydh
Posts: 23150
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 8/16/2001
Member: #96
12/30/2005  1:23 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Allanfan20:

the Knicks switch the 2007 pick with Chicago, unless of course, we have a better record.
Yup; that's why we can't have the #1 pick (unless there's a trade) but can pick anywhere from 2 to 30

Yeah and technically San Antonio can lose enough to make the lottery this year and we'd have a lottery pick but it's not going to happen so why talk about it like it's a possibility? Oh wait, you're just spinning. Nevermind.

Without a trade, it IS going to happen that we'll be picking anywhere from 2 to 30 like I said

San Antonio IS going to lose enough to make the lottery this year and we're going to get their lottery pick?!? Umm ok.

You're talking about something different. I thought you used the SA analogy to somehow prove my statement false that the Knicks would be picking between 2 and 30 in 2007. But if you agree with my original statement, then what was the point of the SA analogy?

isles just has trouble not responding to your posts even if he has nothing to say.
Bippity10
Posts: 13999
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2004
Member: #574
12/30/2005  1:27 PM
Isles loves you as much as he loves Isiah
I just hope that people will like me
islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
12/30/2005  1:31 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Allanfan20:

the Knicks switch the 2007 pick with Chicago, unless of course, we have a better record.
Yup; that's why we can't have the #1 pick (unless there's a trade) but can pick anywhere from 2 to 30

Yeah and technically San Antonio can lose enough to make the lottery this year and we'd have a lottery pick but it's not going to happen so why talk about it like it's a possibility? Oh wait, you're just spinning. Nevermind.

Without a trade, it IS going to happen that we'll be picking anywhere from 2 to 30 like I said

San Antonio IS going to lose enough to make the lottery this year and we're going to get their lottery pick?!? Umm ok.

You're talking about something different. I thought you used the SA analogy to somehow prove my statement false that the Knicks would be picking between 2 and 30 in 2007. But if you agree with my original statement, then what was the point of the SA analogy?

The point is, no **** we're picking between 2-30. The sun is also going to rise tomorrow and the ball is going to drop in Times Square at midnight tomorrow. How about you say something meaningful for once. Like where do you think that pick will fall? Technically the Spurs can be in the lottery this year but we know they won't just like it's highly doubtful that we'll be picking 2nd next year.
If it didn’t work in Phoenix with Nash and Stoutamire... it’s just not a winning formula. It’s an entertaining formula, but not a winning one. - Derek Harper talking about D'Antoni's System
islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
12/30/2005  1:32 PM
Posted by jaydh:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Allanfan20:

the Knicks switch the 2007 pick with Chicago, unless of course, we have a better record.
Yup; that's why we can't have the #1 pick (unless there's a trade) but can pick anywhere from 2 to 30

Yeah and technically San Antonio can lose enough to make the lottery this year and we'd have a lottery pick but it's not going to happen so why talk about it like it's a possibility? Oh wait, you're just spinning. Nevermind.

Without a trade, it IS going to happen that we'll be picking anywhere from 2 to 30 like I said

San Antonio IS going to lose enough to make the lottery this year and we're going to get their lottery pick?!? Umm ok.

You're talking about something different. I thought you used the SA analogy to somehow prove my statement false that the Knicks would be picking between 2 and 30 in 2007. But if you agree with my original statement, then what was the point of the SA analogy?

isles just has trouble not responding to your posts even if he has nothing to say.

You're kidding right? Bonn is the one that admits to not responding to my questions.
If it didn’t work in Phoenix with Nash and Stoutamire... it’s just not a winning formula. It’s an entertaining formula, but not a winning one. - Derek Harper talking about D'Antoni's System
jaydh
Posts: 23150
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 8/16/2001
Member: #96
12/30/2005  1:32 PM
Posted by islesfan:

The point is, no **** we're picking between 2-30. The sun is also going to rise tomorrow and the ball is going to drop in Times Square at midnight tomorrow. How about you say something meaningful for once. Like where do you think that pick will fall? Technically the Spurs can be in the lottery this year but we know they won't just like it's highly doubtful that we'll be picking 2nd next year.

if this team is as bad as you say it is, why is it so inconceivable(sp?) to believe that we could get a high lottery pick next year?
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
12/30/2005  1:42 PM
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Allanfan20:

the Knicks switch the 2007 pick with Chicago, unless of course, we have a better record.
Yup; that's why we can't have the #1 pick (unless there's a trade) but can pick anywhere from 2 to 30

Yeah and technically San Antonio can lose enough to make the lottery this year and we'd have a lottery pick but it's not going to happen so why talk about it like it's a possibility? Oh wait, you're just spinning. Nevermind.

Without a trade, it IS going to happen that we'll be picking anywhere from 2 to 30 like I said

San Antonio IS going to lose enough to make the lottery this year and we're going to get their lottery pick?!? Umm ok.

You're talking about something different. I thought you used the SA analogy to somehow prove my statement false that the Knicks would be picking between 2 and 30 in 2007. But if you agree with my original statement, then what was the point of the SA analogy?

The point is, no **** we're picking between 2-30. The sun is also going to rise tomorrow and the ball is going to drop in Times Square at midnight tomorrow. How about you say something meaningful for once. Like where do you think that pick will fall? Technically the Spurs can be in the lottery this year but we know they won't just like it's highly doubtful that we'll be picking 2nd next year.
The Spurs are IRRELEVANT to this discussion. We've been talking about the 2007 pick that we may swap with the Bulls. If the two teams (Knicks and Bulls) finish next year the same place in the standings that they're in now, we'd be swapping our early lottery pick for the Bulls mid lottery pick. Please expalin what SA has to do with this? I bold fonted the first part by allanfan of the discussion so you can see this was purely a discussion about the 2007 draft swapping with Chicago.


[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 12-30-2005 1:43 PM]
Bippity10
Posts: 13999
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2004
Member: #574
12/30/2005  1:45 PM
Bonn: You know I love you right. But I do find it funny how Isles gets under you skin every time. It's borderline brilliant.
I just hope that people will like me
islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
12/30/2005  1:51 PM
Posted by jaydh:
Posted by islesfan:

The point is, no **** we're picking between 2-30. The sun is also going to rise tomorrow and the ball is going to drop in Times Square at midnight tomorrow. How about you say something meaningful for once. Like where do you think that pick will fall? Technically the Spurs can be in the lottery this year but we know they won't just like it's highly doubtful that we'll be picking 2nd next year.

if this team is as bad as you say it is, why is it so inconceivable(sp?) to believe that we could get a high lottery pick next year?

Because that pick will be going to the Bulls.
If it didn’t work in Phoenix with Nash and Stoutamire... it’s just not a winning formula. It’s an entertaining formula, but not a winning one. - Derek Harper talking about D'Antoni's System
jaydh
Posts: 23150
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 8/16/2001
Member: #96
12/30/2005  1:53 PM
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by jaydh:
Posted by islesfan:

The point is, no **** we're picking between 2-30. The sun is also going to rise tomorrow and the ball is going to drop in Times Square at midnight tomorrow. How about you say something meaningful for once. Like where do you think that pick will fall? Technically the Spurs can be in the lottery this year but we know they won't just like it's highly doubtful that we'll be picking 2nd next year.

if this team is as bad as you say it is, why is it so inconceivable(sp?) to believe that we could get a high lottery pick next year?

Because that pick will be going to the Bulls.

we only traded one 1st round pick for curry, if they use ours this year, then they wont have ours in 07.
islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
12/30/2005  1:56 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Allanfan20:

the Knicks switch the 2007 pick with Chicago, unless of course, we have a better record.
Yup; that's why we can't have the #1 pick (unless there's a trade) but can pick anywhere from 2 to 30

Yeah and technically San Antonio can lose enough to make the lottery this year and we'd have a lottery pick but it's not going to happen so why talk about it like it's a possibility? Oh wait, you're just spinning. Nevermind.

Without a trade, it IS going to happen that we'll be picking anywhere from 2 to 30 like I said

San Antonio IS going to lose enough to make the lottery this year and we're going to get their lottery pick?!? Umm ok.

You're talking about something different. I thought you used the SA analogy to somehow prove my statement false that the Knicks would be picking between 2 and 30 in 2007. But if you agree with my original statement, then what was the point of the SA analogy?

The point is, no **** we're picking between 2-30. The sun is also going to rise tomorrow and the ball is going to drop in Times Square at midnight tomorrow. How about you say something meaningful for once. Like where do you think that pick will fall? Technically the Spurs can be in the lottery this year but we know they won't just like it's highly doubtful that we'll be picking 2nd next year.
The Spurs are IRRELEVANT to this discussion. We've been talking about the 2007 pick that we may swap with the Bulls. If the two teams (Knicks and Bulls) finish next year the same place in the standings that they're in now, we'd be swapping our early lottery pick for the Bulls mid lottery pick. Please expalin what SA has to do with this? I bold fonted the first part by allanfan of the discussion so you can see this was purely a discussion about the 2007 draft swapping with Chicago.


[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 12-30-2005 1:43 PM]

OMG you're so obtuse. I'm bringing up the Spurs as another example of something that you could say that would be technically true but not likely to happen, like the Knicks picking 2nd in 07.

Why would the Bulls be in the same position as next year when they could possibly have a pick in the top of the lottery and in the middle of it plus $20MM to work with this coming offseason? The Knicks remaining in their position is a lot more realistic since they don't have the avenues to acquire a difference maker the way the Bulls do.
If it didn’t work in Phoenix with Nash and Stoutamire... it’s just not a winning formula. It’s an entertaining formula, but not a winning one. - Derek Harper talking about D'Antoni's System
islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
12/30/2005  2:05 PM
Posted by jaydh:
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by jaydh:
Posted by islesfan:

The point is, no **** we're picking between 2-30. The sun is also going to rise tomorrow and the ball is going to drop in Times Square at midnight tomorrow. How about you say something meaningful for once. Like where do you think that pick will fall? Technically the Spurs can be in the lottery this year but we know they won't just like it's highly doubtful that we'll be picking 2nd next year.

if this team is as bad as you say it is, why is it so inconceivable(sp?) to believe that we could get a high lottery pick next year?

Because that pick will be going to the Bulls.

we only traded one 1st round pick for curry, if they use ours this year, then they wont have ours in 07.

Actually they have ours unprotected this year and they have ours to swap for next year regardless.
If it didn’t work in Phoenix with Nash and Stoutamire... it’s just not a winning formula. It’s an entertaining formula, but not a winning one. - Derek Harper talking about D'Antoni's System
jaydh
Posts: 23150
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 8/16/2001
Member: #96
12/30/2005  2:06 PM
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by jaydh:
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by jaydh:
Posted by islesfan:

The point is, no **** we're picking between 2-30. The sun is also going to rise tomorrow and the ball is going to drop in Times Square at midnight tomorrow. How about you say something meaningful for once. Like where do you think that pick will fall? Technically the Spurs can be in the lottery this year but we know they won't just like it's highly doubtful that we'll be picking 2nd next year.

if this team is as bad as you say it is, why is it so inconceivable(sp?) to believe that we could get a high lottery pick next year?

Because that pick will be going to the Bulls.

we only traded one 1st round pick for curry, if they use ours this year, then they wont have ours in 07.

Actually they have ours unprotected this year and they have ours to swap for next year regardless.

they have ours this year OR ours next year, thats it.
islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
12/30/2005  2:12 PM
Posted by jaydh:
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by jaydh:
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by jaydh:
Posted by islesfan:

The point is, no **** we're picking between 2-30. The sun is also going to rise tomorrow and the ball is going to drop in Times Square at midnight tomorrow. How about you say something meaningful for once. Like where do you think that pick will fall? Technically the Spurs can be in the lottery this year but we know they won't just like it's highly doubtful that we'll be picking 2nd next year.

if this team is as bad as you say it is, why is it so inconceivable(sp?) to believe that we could get a high lottery pick next year?

Because that pick will be going to the Bulls.

we only traded one 1st round pick for curry, if they use ours this year, then they wont have ours in 07.

Actually they have ours unprotected this year and they have ours to swap for next year regardless.

they have ours this year OR ours next year, thats it.

What I've stated has already been discussed frequently on this board and in the media. Do I really have to go onto NBA.com to look for it again?
If it didn’t work in Phoenix with Nash and Stoutamire... it’s just not a winning formula. It’s an entertaining formula, but not a winning one. - Derek Harper talking about D'Antoni's System
islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
12/30/2005  2:21 PM
http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/curry_traded_051004.html

Here, now stop posting that we only gave up one potential lottery pick.
If it didn’t work in Phoenix with Nash and Stoutamire... it’s just not a winning formula. It’s an entertaining formula, but not a winning one. - Derek Harper talking about D'Antoni's System
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
12/30/2005  3:18 PM
Posted by Bippity10:

Bonn: You know I love you right. But I do find it funny how Isles gets under you skin every time. It's borderline brilliant.

I'm a little surprised you would think that. I didn't even use any insults like he usually uses. It wasn't bothering me. I was just replying to his statements.
Bippity10
Posts: 13999
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2004
Member: #574
12/30/2005  3:26 PM
Well, it seems like you get annoyed. I can't tell the tone from your typing. Isles is harmless. Evil. But harmless.
I just hope that people will like me
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
12/30/2005  3:34 PM
Posted by Bippity10:

Well, it seems like you get annoyed. I can't tell the tone from your typing. Isles is harmless. Evil. But harmless.

Evil but harmless. I'd agree
Page 4 of 5 « First‹ Previous 2  3  4  5 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
we got SOOOOO hosed in the QRich deal. He's damaged goods
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy