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

OT - Ben Wallace to the Bulls!
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 4 of 5 « First‹ Previous 2  3  4  5 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
Marv
Posts: 35540
Alba Posts: 69
Joined: 9/2/2002
Member: #315
7/4/2006  9:17 AM
ah, solace, you beat me with the very same point.
AUTOADVERT
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
7/4/2006  9:45 AM
Posted by Solace:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by fishmike:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by Bonn1997:

What does Big Ben have to do with the Knicks?

The Bulls don't have the cap space to attempt to sign Ben Wallace if they don't get the Knicks to take Curry off their hands.
They could have let Curry walk and had the exact same cap space. We had nothing to do with their current cap space or acquisition of Ben wallace.

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 07-04-2006 07:30 AM]
I dont know whats funnier... that you said it or that you believe it
Sometimes the truth is funny I guess. Not one player we took off their payroll had a contract that would have gone into this season; not one would have influenced their cap room this offseason; and not one would have impacted their chances of getting Ben Wallace. Facts can be annoying when they disprove your position, can't they?

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 07-04-2006 09:01 AM]

Um, you don't let Eddy Curry walk for free! Let's see... let him walk, or trade him for a gala of draft picks and expiring contracts. Hmm... tough call.

Honestly, do you seriously believe if we or another team didn't step up to trade for Curry that the Bulls would've just let him walk? Any GM who let Curry walk for free would've been fired on the spot. Sometimes I think you get so caught up on *technicalities* that you miss the point.

Fine; they could have traded Curry elsewhere. I'm sure some GM would have given an expiring contract and a draft pick. Then they're in the same situation. They didn't have to let Curry walk. They could have given him a one year qualifying offer too I believe. We really had nothing to do with their acquisition of Ben as much as people who hate Isiah want to think we did. (And I'm of the many who want Isiah fired; I'm just not gonna hit him with punches he didn't deserve.)
Bobby
Posts: 22094
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/18/2003
Member: #408
USA
7/4/2006  10:20 AM
all this for chicago looks good on paper but i can remember a similar circumstance back in miami with brian grant and eddie jones joining forces with zo that had the same championship stench........good move on bulls part.

brilliant move on dumars part
"Like they always say, New York is the Mecca of basketball,"I read that in Michael Jordan books my whole life and I played here in the Big East tournament, so it's always fun to play in the Mecca of basketball."---Rip Hamilton
islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
7/4/2006  10:26 AM
Bonn, you keep talking about what Chicago COULD have done while Fish, Solace, Marv and myself talk about what Chicago DID do. Can't you tell the difference?

Yeah, the Knicks didn't have to help the Bulls clear cap space which enabled them to make this offer to Ben Wallace but they most certainly did. That's the point.
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
Solace
Posts: 30002
Alba Posts: 20
Joined: 10/30/2003
Member: #479
USA
7/4/2006  11:01 AM
Posted by islesfan:

Bonn, you keep talking about what Chicago COULD have done while Fish, Solace, Marv and myself talk about what Chicago DID do. Can't you tell the difference?

Yeah, the Knicks didn't have to help the Bulls clear cap space which enabled them to make this offer to Ben Wallace but they most certainly did. That's the point.

Bingo.
Wishing everyone well. I enjoyed posting here for a while, but as I matured I realized this forum isn't for me. We all evolve. Thanks for the memories everyone.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
7/4/2006  11:11 AM
Posted by Solace:
Posted by islesfan:

Bonn, you keep talking about what Chicago COULD have done while Fish, Solace, Marv and myself talk about what Chicago DID do. Can't you tell the difference?

Yeah, the Knicks didn't have to help the Bulls clear cap space which enabled them to make this offer to Ben Wallace but they most certainly did. That's the point.

Bingo.

But what they DID do (attain Ben Wallace) had nothing to do with us! The acquisition of Ben was neither facilitated nor complicated by anything we ever did with them.
gr33d
Posts: 20788
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 2/19/2006
Member: #1097
USA
7/4/2006  11:16 AM
Posted by joec32033:
Posted by Bobby:
Posted by Bonn1997:

What does Big Ben have to do with the Knicks?

lol......maybe ny was smart enough not to get envolved

Or Ben was smart enough not to get involved wih these Knicks.

Might've been because Isiah wasn't willing to Pony up the rookies:

http://"We tried to work out a couple of deals," Wallace said. "But there was nothing that Joe felt would work. He didn't just want to take back players that he didn't want or players that he felt he was just going to have to turn around and move. They just couldn't get the guys they wanted."

Or not, who knows...

"If you ain't first, you're last" - Ricky Bobby
Solace
Posts: 30002
Alba Posts: 20
Joined: 10/30/2003
Member: #479
USA
7/4/2006  11:17 AM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Solace:
Posted by islesfan:

Bonn, you keep talking about what Chicago COULD have done while Fish, Solace, Marv and myself talk about what Chicago DID do. Can't you tell the difference?

Yeah, the Knicks didn't have to help the Bulls clear cap space which enabled them to make this offer to Ben Wallace but they most certainly did. That's the point.

Bingo.

But what they DID do (attain Ben Wallace) had nothing to do with us! The acquisition of Ben was neither facilitated nor complicated by anything we ever did with them.

Ridiculous. And the point was that we helped them get Ben Wallace, AND TYRUS THOMAS, A future lottery pick, two second rounders, Mike Sweetney, etc... and possibly made them future NBA champions.

NOT JUST BEN WALLACE
Wishing everyone well. I enjoyed posting here for a while, but as I matured I realized this forum isn't for me. We all evolve. Thanks for the memories everyone.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
7/4/2006  11:20 AM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Solace:
Posted by islesfan:

Bonn, you keep talking about what Chicago COULD have done while Fish, Solace, Marv and myself talk about what Chicago DID do. Can't you tell the difference?

Yeah, the Knicks didn't have to help the Bulls clear cap space which enabled them to make this offer to Ben Wallace but they most certainly did. That's the point.

Bingo.

But what they DID do (attain Ben Wallace) had nothing to do with us! The acquisition of Ben was neither facilitated nor complicated by anything we ever did with them.

Just to add: Solace is actually the one talking about "Could haves" when he said the Bulls could have re-signed Curry to a big contract or done a sign and trade and taken back more salary. Then I entertained some scanarios that might unfold were that to happen.

You have to have some comparison condition when saying a GM helped another team. Otherwise the question is, "helped compared to WHAT?" For every other analysis I've seen this means compared to if the team had *done nothing.* For example, Isiah helped the Suns in the Marbury deal because if they had done nothing, they'd have had Penny and couldn't have afforded Nash.

It doesn't work with the Bulls though: If the Bulls had done nothing, they'd have the exact same cap situation and the exact same ability to sign Big Ben. If you want to entertain Solace's "could haves," they still "could have" pulled off sign and trades they left them with the same cap space they currently have.
gunsnewing
Posts: 55076
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 2/24/2002
Member: #215
USA
7/4/2006  11:27 AM
its so funny how next year we get Chicago pick which will be 20 something while Chicago gets our pick which could be lottery or close to it LOL
Solace
Posts: 30002
Alba Posts: 20
Joined: 10/30/2003
Member: #479
USA
7/4/2006  11:28 AM
Bonn, you just don't get it. Not because you're not capable, because you don't want to.

I would like for you to name me the last time a team let a young potential superstar big man go without making as much as an effort? (No, Michael Olowakandi does NOT count, so don't try anything along those lines). Is it possible it's never happened before?

Like I said, they took a big asset and converted it into bigger assets. Yes, they would've gotten some assets (not as high) back from other teams, most likely... and had they not, they would've resigned Curry, because you don't just let him go for free.

How can you not comprehend that?

Are you seriously telling me that you would've let Curry go, foreseeing a shot at Ben Wallace? The risk-to-reward ratio isn't high enough to do that! I think, you, along with most other people, though Curry had high value last offseason and no team would let him go for free.

Yes, we SEVERELY HELPED out the Bulls. Please stop now.

[Edited by - Solace on 07-04-2006 11:29 AM]
Wishing everyone well. I enjoyed posting here for a while, but as I matured I realized this forum isn't for me. We all evolve. Thanks for the memories everyone.
EwingsGlass
Posts: 27716
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 4/29/2005
Member: #893
USA
7/4/2006  11:32 AM
Posted by Solace:

Bonn, you just don't get it. Not because you're not capable, because you don't want to.

I would like for you to name me the last time a team let a young potential superstar big man go without making as much as an effort? (No, Michael Olowakandi does NOT count, so don't try anything along those lines). Is it possible it's never happened before?

Like I said, they took a big asset and converted it into bigger assets. Yes, they would've gotten some assets (not as high) back from other teams, most likely... and had they not, they would've resigned Curry, because you don't just let him go for free.

How can you not comprehend that?

Are you seriously telling me that you would've let Curry go, foreseeing a shot at Ben Wallace? The risk-to-reward ratio isn't high enough to do that! I think, you, along with most other people, though Curry had high value last offseason and no team would let him go for free.

Yes, we SEVERELY HELPED out the Bulls. Please stop now.

[Edited by - Solace on 07-04-2006 11:29 AM]

Have you forgotten the whole "take an MRI" problem, where the Bulls would not sign him unless he took an MRI so they could get insurance? I think there is a strong chance they would have let Curry walk without that MRI.

[Edited by - ewingsglass on 07-04-2006 11:32 AM]
You know I gonna spin wit it
Solace
Posts: 30002
Alba Posts: 20
Joined: 10/30/2003
Member: #479
USA
7/4/2006  11:37 AM
Posted by EwingsGlass:

Have you forgotten the whole "take an MRI" problem, where the Bulls would not sign him unless he took an MRI so they could get insurance? I think there is a strong chance they would have let Curry walk without that MRI.

[Edited by - ewingsglass on 07-04-2006 11:32 AM]

That was why they started looking into trading him and got the interest of many teams.

If he was somehow untradeable and push came to shove, he would've resigned with the Bulls (even if for only one year), because he wouldn't have been able to get more than MLE otherwise, since almost every team was over the cap.
Wishing everyone well. I enjoyed posting here for a while, but as I matured I realized this forum isn't for me. We all evolve. Thanks for the memories everyone.
Silverfuel
Posts: 31750
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 6/27/2002
Member: #268
USA
7/4/2006  11:37 AM
Posted by EwingsGlass:

Have you forgotten the whole "take an MRI" problem, where the Bulls would not sign him unless he took an MRI so they could get insurance? I think there is a strong chance they would have let Curry walk without that MRI.

[Edited by - ewingsglass on 07-04-2006 11:32 AM]
Yes, there is a chance they would've let him walk but not that much of a chance. They would've traded him for something and the money would've come off their cap. Dont blame Isiah but you gotta admit, Paxson is playing his cards pretty damn well.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
nyk4ever
Posts: 41010
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 1/12/2005
Member: #848
USA
7/4/2006  11:43 AM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Solace:
Posted by islesfan:

Bonn, you keep talking about what Chicago COULD have done while Fish, Solace, Marv and myself talk about what Chicago DID do. Can't you tell the difference?

Yeah, the Knicks didn't have to help the Bulls clear cap space which enabled them to make this offer to Ben Wallace but they most certainly did. That's the point.

Bingo.

But what they DID do (attain Ben Wallace) had nothing to do with us! The acquisition of Ben was neither facilitated nor complicated by anything we ever did with them.

Bonn we gave them 10million dollars of capspace.. thats what we did.
"OMG - did we just go on a two-trade-wining-streak?" -SupremeCommander
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
7/4/2006  3:51 PM
Posted by Solace:

Bonn, you just don't get it. Not because you're not capable, because you don't want to.

I would like for you to name me the last time a team let a young potential superstar big man go without making as much as an effort? (No, Michael Olowakandi does NOT count, so don't try anything along those lines). Is it possible it's never happened before?

Like I said, they took a big asset and converted it into bigger assets. Yes, they would've gotten some assets (not as high) back from other teams, most likely... and had they not, they would've resigned Curry, because you don't just let him go for free.

How can you not comprehend that?

Are you seriously telling me that you would've let Curry go, foreseeing a shot at Ben Wallace? The risk-to-reward ratio isn't high enough to do that! I think, you, along with most other people, though Curry had high value last offseason and no team would let him go for free.

Yes, we SEVERELY HELPED out the Bulls. Please stop now.

[Edited by - Solace on 07-04-2006 11:29 AM]

Jeez calm down. I'm seriously concerned about you if you're getting this emotional. If *you* want to get into what they "would have done" had they not done the Curry trade with NY, I can just as easily say some other team would have given them an expiring contract and something else like a draft pick in a Curry deal and they'd be in the same cap situation. It would be a less appealing deal to Chicago, but their cap situation would be the exact same.
rojasmas
Posts: 21207
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/25/2004
Member: #639
7/4/2006  5:36 PM
I don't blame Detroit for not matching or beating Chicago's offer. As good a defender and rebounder as Ben is, he can't shoot from the field or foul line. That is a very big deal come playoff time.
We could be the Dallas Mavs of the East.
Solace
Posts: 30002
Alba Posts: 20
Joined: 10/30/2003
Member: #479
USA
7/4/2006  7:09 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Solace:

Bonn, you just don't get it. Not because you're not capable, because you don't want to.

I would like for you to name me the last time a team let a young potential superstar big man go without making as much as an effort? (No, Michael Olowakandi does NOT count, so don't try anything along those lines). Is it possible it's never happened before?

Like I said, they took a big asset and converted it into bigger assets. Yes, they would've gotten some assets (not as high) back from other teams, most likely... and had they not, they would've resigned Curry, because you don't just let him go for free.

How can you not comprehend that?

Are you seriously telling me that you would've let Curry go, foreseeing a shot at Ben Wallace? The risk-to-reward ratio isn't high enough to do that! I think, you, along with most other people, though Curry had high value last offseason and no team would let him go for free.

Yes, we SEVERELY HELPED out the Bulls. Please stop now.

[Edited by - Solace on 07-04-2006 11:29 AM]

Jeez calm down. I'm seriously concerned about you if you're getting this emotional. If *you* want to get into what they "would have done" had they not done the Curry trade with NY, I can just as easily say some other team would have given them an expiring contract and something else like a draft pick in a Curry deal and they'd be in the same cap situation. It would be a less appealing deal to Chicago, but their cap situation would be the exact same.

OMFG11!! U AZZH!!!!JLJGSLKJGSJGSD AHHHHGH!

Heh heh. The caps were for effect, Bonnie. Not emotional at all. Just tired of arguing over minor details, when the minor points ignore the big picture. Hope that clarified.
Wishing everyone well. I enjoyed posting here for a while, but as I matured I realized this forum isn't for me. We all evolve. Thanks for the memories everyone.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
7/4/2006  9:41 PM
You're still wrong but I guess it clarified!
Solace
Posts: 30002
Alba Posts: 20
Joined: 10/30/2003
Member: #479
USA
7/5/2006  12:08 AM
Posted by Bonn1997:

You're still wrong but I guess it clarified!

Again, you're arguing technicalities and abstractions. I'm arguing reality.
Wishing everyone well. I enjoyed posting here for a while, but as I matured I realized this forum isn't for me. We all evolve. Thanks for the memories everyone.
Page 4 of 5 « First‹ Previous 2  3  4  5 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
OT - Ben Wallace to the Bulls!
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