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

Who Has The Most Trade Value On Our Team....Lee Excluded!
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 4 of 6 « First‹ Previous 2  3  4  5  6 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
TrueBlue
Posts: 29144
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 9/20/2006
Member: #1172
12/26/2007  1:56 PM
Posted by JaydeeNYC:
Posted by TrueBlue:


Isn't this what he had in Portland? you just said
"It's obvious they have a better coach, and a better team."
It was brought out in yesterday's game the turning point in the Blazers' season last yr was when Roy stood up to Zach's criticism of their point guard play before the team. Their cap situation is very healthy come 2009/2010


[Edited by - TrueBlue on 12-26-2007 12:26 PM]

No, Zack did not have the same team in Portland, a year in off season training for 2 of there "franchise" players Aldridge and Roy makes a heck of a difference. Steve Blake is a key contributor to the point guard play as well.


As far as media critique, people will always surmise a success or downfall based on perception. Does this in fact make it reality? No way! Look at how many media reps said the Knicks would be good this year, or at least playoff bound but we are structurally flawed. No teams mentioned Portland, in fact they said this was a set back year because of Greg Odens injury. Look, I ain't tryna sit here and debate about Portland's success with you, It's clear as day, they are balling... all I am saying to you is this... Zack Randolph being dealt away should not be viewed as the catalyst for there recent win streak. They have good coaching, and are catching teams slipping.. It happens in the NBA. It's funny how, people were not talking about Portland when they were losing early on.



Dude who said this? I saw nobody pick us better than 9. ESPN had 10 analyst project our season most of them had us finishing 10-11 in the East. Nobody picked us to win more than 40gms. Why didn't PDX reason keep the 23/10 guy with the progressing talent, good coach and the skies the limit? I think you're a little off base in thinking the other side of the argument is solely crediting the exodus of Zach to their current success. We're saying his absence gave them more opportunity to reap benefits with what they had, wanted to gain, and what they want to achieve. From continual player development, future cap flexibility, better chemistry, leadership, and possibly more wins

[Edited by - TrueBlue on 12-26-2007 1:11 PM]
LMFAO @ the Bio [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephon_Marbury[/url]
AUTOADVERT
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
12/26/2007  2:03 PM
I think you're a little off base in thinking the other side of the argument is solely crediting the exodus of Zach to their current success.

True you know full well that many on here do not go indepth but rather just say Portland has improved and the Knicks have gotten worse without going into great detail as to why Portland is really doing better and how the Knicks have been on a downward spiral for awhile now.
TrueBlue
Posts: 29144
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 9/20/2006
Member: #1172
12/26/2007  2:09 PM
Posted by bitty41:
I think you're a little off base in thinking the other side of the argument is solely crediting the exodus of Zach to their current success.

True you know full well that many on here do not go indepth but rather just say Portland has improved and the Knicks have gotten worse without going into great detail as to why Portland is really doing better and how the Knicks have been on a downward spiral for awhile now.

Well maybe but overall the basketball IQ of the detractors on this board is pretty high. I broke down what I'm sure is behind the statements because you see such pairings surface in other discussions.
LMFAO @ the Bio [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephon_Marbury[/url]
JaydeeNYC
Posts: 20056
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/17/2007
Member: #1745
USA
12/26/2007  2:15 PM
Posted by TrueBlue:


Dude who said this. I saw nobody pick us better than 9. ESPN had 10 analyst project our season most of them had us finishing 10-11 in the East. Why didn't PDX reason keep the 23/10 guy with the progressing talent and good coach and the skies the limit. I think you're a little off base in thinking the other side of the argument is solely crediting the exodus of Zach to their current success. We're saying his absence gave them more opportunity to reap benefits with what they had, wanted to gain, and what they want to achieve. From continual player development, future cap flexibility, better chemistry, leadership, and possibly more wins

CNNSI, CBSSPORTSLINE, Sportingnews.com, On ESPN Max Kellerman, Stephen A Smith, Scoop Jackson.. they all liked NY. If you watched the NBA draft you heard it.. Peter Vescey as much of a hater as he is called the knicks a playoff team on NBA TV. As far as the player development theory... Ok fine, I can certainly agree that was another factor in making the deal! (If you recall I pointed out that they have had a slew of top lottery picks in the fold since 2005)... You can also assume that his offseason problems attributed to his departure from Portland as well... But I ask you this, would his ouster from a Knicks roster improve our team in the same light as the Trailblazers... Absolutely not. We do not have the same level of projected talent on our roster. If you think that getting a low 1st rd pick would help in that regard you are mistaken. Cap flexibility would not matter if we are building through the draft, it's only important if running at marquee free agents. Randolph's salary alone, being removed will not help us sign any impact players in the near future. For that reason you keep him and wait until other contracts come off. You deal him, if you can get an allstar caliber player.

I will repeat Zach Randolph's departure did not lead to Portland's recent winning streak. It is silly that this is even apart of the argument. Portland got hot at the right time, good coaching... and they caught alot of teams slipping. You really think that if Zach wasn't on that team they couldn't win in the same fashion, assuming he bought into the team concept?







[Edited by - JaydeeNYC on 12-26-2007 2:29 PM]
New York is the Basketball Mecca of the World... NYK Fans deserve a winning squad-- Ball Up!
Allanfan20
Posts: 36034
Alba Posts: 50
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #542
USA
12/26/2007  2:16 PM
Portland is better for many reasons. The emergence of Roy, Martell, Albridge. Their players HAVE gelled together, and their players our developing, and their bench players, when called upon, are ready to come in and play effectively and do what they need to do. The departure of Zach does help, because he doesn't fit their current system. They are in a system where ball movement is promoted and a power game, dump the ball into the post all game style hurts, because Zach isn't a good passer.

Portland isn't coming out of the West this year, but it can be soon!

Knicks downward spiral is helped by Zach, but only lightly. It's more so of just about everyone not knowing how to play team ball, not putting up a commitment for defense and not knowing how to play team defense. Plus, there are no shotblockers and no leaders. It's all scorers. To me, Zach doesn't fit out system either, because we needed to trade for someone who's an big time defender in the post. A big time shotblocker. That is the only way it can work if you're building around Curry in your starting lineup, or Zach for that matter. But neither know how to play team ball nor defend, hence the frontcourt is a disaster. The only way Zach compliments Curry is by rebounding, but so does Lee for that matter, and he's cheaper.

Curry is a bench player. Zach is a starter for certain teams like a Boston or Denver or PERHAPS LA. But if Bynum continues to shine, they wont need Zach.

Neither player fits our system though, not that we even have a system. Nobody on our team fits.

Does that satisfy you, Bitty?
“I couldn’t dunk it so I tried to, you know, just touched it.”- OG Anunoby
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
12/26/2007  2:27 PM
Allan

You want a standing ovation maybe a Gold Star for the day? Come on seriously people there is a lot of blanket statements being made with no kind of analysis particularly when it comes to Zach Randolph. Many have used Portland's recent success as a perfect example of how Zach cannot be apart of a winning team. Whether its true or not its being used readily on here.
newyorknewyork
Posts: 30386
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #541
12/26/2007  2:35 PM
Bitty what would be your plan for the knicks??
https://vote.nba.com/en Vote for your Knicks.
SupremeCommander
Posts: 34121
Alba Posts: 35
Joined: 4/28/2006
Member: #1127
12/26/2007  2:51 PM
Who has the most trade value on the Knicks (excluding Lee)? Good question...

Here's my rank:
(1) Nate Robinson - He's a sparkplug on a good contract with some upside. Maybe we could get a scrub a mid-level first rounder. Let the record show I am NOT much of a Nate fan... sad that I have him #1.

(2) Jamal Crawford - any team looking for some scoring punch--especially from the bench--would want him. Maybe we could get an expiring for him.

(3) Fred Jones - He's an older Nate Robinson and I could see a contender wanting him. So, a very late first rounder is probably what could be had for him.

(4) Rose - people discredit him ALL THE TIME, but on a good team he'd be valued. I'm not saying by much because of his contract, but teams STILL pursue Darryl Armstong for his leadership, and that dude is 39. He could probably be swapped for a QRich-type player (overpaid for wahtever reason, but in theory a decent skillset)

(5) Balkman - Maybe a second round pick.

(6) Morris - Maybe an NBDL player.

No one else makes my list. Everyone else sucks donkey balls.

People are going to say "Ahem, Curry and Randolph have value!!!" Stop deluding yourselves. There's a reason the Knicks were the only team that pursued both players in the first place.
DLeethal wrote: Lol Rick needs a safe space
TrueBlue
Posts: 29144
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 9/20/2006
Member: #1172
12/26/2007  2:57 PM
Posted by SupremeCommander:

Who has the most trade value on the Knicks (excluding Lee)? Good question...

Here's my rank:
(1) Nate Robinson - He's a sparkplug on a good contract with some upside. Maybe we could get a scrub a mid-level first rounder. Let the record show I am NOT much of a Nate fan... sad that I have him #1.

(2) Jamal Crawford - any team looking for some scoring punch--especially from the bench--would want him. Maybe we could get an expiring for him.

(3) Fred Jones - He's an older Nate Robinson and I could see a contender wanting him. So, a very late first rounder is probably what could be had for him.

(4) Rose - people discredit him ALL THE TIME, but on a good team he'd be valued. I'm not saying by much because of his contract, but teams STILL pursue Darryl Armstong for his leadership, and that dude is 39. He could probably be swapped for a QRich-type player (overpaid for wahtever reason, but in theory a decent skillset)

(5) Balkman - Maybe a second round pick.

(6) Morris - Maybe an NBDL player.

No one else makes my list. Everyone else sucks donkey balls.

People are going to say "Ahem, Curry and Randolph have value!!!" Stop deluding yourselves. There's a reason the Knicks were the only team that pursued both players in the first place.


I admire you and Vdesai I seriously can't rank them even after seeing your rankings. I think Nate and Jones are way too high but maybe the phone conversations last longer. It's really that bad.
LMFAO @ the Bio [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephon_Marbury[/url]
SupremeCommander
Posts: 34121
Alba Posts: 35
Joined: 4/28/2006
Member: #1127
12/26/2007  3:01 PM
Posted by TrueBlue:
Posted by SupremeCommander:

Who has the most trade value on the Knicks (excluding Lee)? Good question...

Here's my rank:
(1) Nate Robinson - He's a sparkplug on a good contract with some upside. Maybe we could get a scrub a mid-level first rounder. Let the record show I am NOT much of a Nate fan... sad that I have him #1.

(2) Jamal Crawford - any team looking for some scoring punch--especially from the bench--would want him. Maybe we could get an expiring for him.

(3) Fred Jones - He's an older Nate Robinson and I could see a contender wanting him. So, a very late first rounder is probably what could be had for him.

(4) Rose - people discredit him ALL THE TIME, but on a good team he'd be valued. I'm not saying by much because of his contract, but teams STILL pursue Darryl Armstong for his leadership, and that dude is 39. He could probably be swapped for a QRich-type player (overpaid for wahtever reason, but in theory a decent skillset)

(5) Balkman - Maybe a second round pick.

(6) Morris - Maybe an NBDL player.

No one else makes my list. Everyone else sucks donkey balls.

People are going to say "Ahem, Curry and Randolph have value!!!" Stop deluding yourselves. There's a reason the Knicks were the only team that pursued both players in the first place.


I admire you and Vdesai I seriously can't rank them even after seeing your rankings. I think Nate and Jones are way too high but maybe the phone conversations last longer. It's really that bad.

Thanks...

Anyway, the thing here is that there is this myth about all the "talent" Isiah has ammassed. Essentially, the problem here is that they all have obscene contracts, so the talent per dollar is towards the bottom of the league. This may not matter in New York, but it matters in the NBA trade market. No one wants to pay what we are paying for slightly-above-mediocre talent to the JAred Jeffries end of the spectrum.

(Talent) / (contract $) must be taken into consideration. Again, while it doesn't matter in NY, it matters pretty much everywhere else.
DLeethal wrote: Lol Rick needs a safe space
Bippity10
Posts: 13999
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2004
Member: #574
12/26/2007  3:03 PM
Posted by SupremeCommander:
Posted by TrueBlue:
Posted by SupremeCommander:

Who has the most trade value on the Knicks (excluding Lee)? Good question...

Here's my rank:
(1) Nate Robinson - He's a sparkplug on a good contract with some upside. Maybe we could get a scrub a mid-level first rounder. Let the record show I am NOT much of a Nate fan... sad that I have him #1.

(2) Jamal Crawford - any team looking for some scoring punch--especially from the bench--would want him. Maybe we could get an expiring for him.

(3) Fred Jones - He's an older Nate Robinson and I could see a contender wanting him. So, a very late first rounder is probably what could be had for him.

(4) Rose - people discredit him ALL THE TIME, but on a good team he'd be valued. I'm not saying by much because of his contract, but teams STILL pursue Darryl Armstong for his leadership, and that dude is 39. He could probably be swapped for a QRich-type player (overpaid for wahtever reason, but in theory a decent skillset)

(5) Balkman - Maybe a second round pick.

(6) Morris - Maybe an NBDL player.

No one else makes my list. Everyone else sucks donkey balls.

People are going to say "Ahem, Curry and Randolph have value!!!" Stop deluding yourselves. There's a reason the Knicks were the only team that pursued both players in the first place.


I admire you and Vdesai I seriously can't rank them even after seeing your rankings. I think Nate and Jones are way too high but maybe the phone conversations last longer. It's really that bad.

Thanks...

Anyway, the thing here is that there is this myth about all the "talent" Isiah has ammassed. Essentially, the problem here is that they all have obscene contracts, so the talent per dollar is towards the bottom of the league. This may not matter in New York, but it matters in the NBA trade market. No one wants to pay what we are paying for slightly-above-mediocre talent to the JAred Jeffries end of the spectrum.

(Talent) / (contract $) must be taken into consideration. Again, while it doesn't matter in NY, it matters pretty much everywhere else.

And that is why in the end "IT IS OUR MONEY"
I just hope that people will like me
SupremeCommander
Posts: 34121
Alba Posts: 35
Joined: 4/28/2006
Member: #1127
12/26/2007  3:06 PM
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by SupremeCommander:
Posted by TrueBlue:
Posted by SupremeCommander:

Who has the most trade value on the Knicks (excluding Lee)? Good question...

Here's my rank:
(1) Nate Robinson - He's a sparkplug on a good contract with some upside. Maybe we could get a scrub a mid-level first rounder. Let the record show I am NOT much of a Nate fan... sad that I have him #1.

(2) Jamal Crawford - any team looking for some scoring punch--especially from the bench--would want him. Maybe we could get an expiring for him.

(3) Fred Jones - He's an older Nate Robinson and I could see a contender wanting him. So, a very late first rounder is probably what could be had for him.

(4) Rose - people discredit him ALL THE TIME, but on a good team he'd be valued. I'm not saying by much because of his contract, but teams STILL pursue Darryl Armstong for his leadership, and that dude is 39. He could probably be swapped for a QRich-type player (overpaid for wahtever reason, but in theory a decent skillset)

(5) Balkman - Maybe a second round pick.

(6) Morris - Maybe an NBDL player.

No one else makes my list. Everyone else sucks donkey balls.

People are going to say "Ahem, Curry and Randolph have value!!!" Stop deluding yourselves. There's a reason the Knicks were the only team that pursued both players in the first place.


I admire you and Vdesai I seriously can't rank them even after seeing your rankings. I think Nate and Jones are way too high but maybe the phone conversations last longer. It's really that bad.

Thanks...

Anyway, the thing here is that there is this myth about all the "talent" Isiah has ammassed. Essentially, the problem here is that they all have obscene contracts, so the talent per dollar is towards the bottom of the league. This may not matter in New York, but it matters in the NBA trade market. No one wants to pay what we are paying for slightly-above-mediocre talent to the JAred Jeffries end of the spectrum.

(Talent) / (contract $) must be taken into consideration. Again, while it doesn't matter in NY, it matters pretty much everywhere else.

And that is why in the end "IT IS OUR MONEY"

I cannot make it anymore clear than this:

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TRADE VALUE. "OUR MONEY" MATTERS TO OTHER TEAMS IN TRADE DISCUSSIONS, which is what this thread is about.
DLeethal wrote: Lol Rick needs a safe space
TrueBlue
Posts: 29144
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 9/20/2006
Member: #1172
12/26/2007  3:17 PM
Posted by SupremeCommander:
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by SupremeCommander:
Posted by TrueBlue:
Posted by SupremeCommander:

Who has the most trade value on the Knicks (excluding Lee)? Good question...

Here's my rank:
(1) Nate Robinson - He's a sparkplug on a good contract with some upside. Maybe we could get a scrub a mid-level first rounder. Let the record show I am NOT much of a Nate fan... sad that I have him #1.

(2) Jamal Crawford - any team looking for some scoring punch--especially from the bench--would want him. Maybe we could get an expiring for him.

(3) Fred Jones - He's an older Nate Robinson and I could see a contender wanting him. So, a very late first rounder is probably what could be had for him.

(4) Rose - people discredit him ALL THE TIME, but on a good team he'd be valued. I'm not saying by much because of his contract, but teams STILL pursue Darryl Armstong for his leadership, and that dude is 39. He could probably be swapped for a QRich-type player (overpaid for wahtever reason, but in theory a decent skillset)

(5) Balkman - Maybe a second round pick.

(6) Morris - Maybe an NBDL player.

No one else makes my list. Everyone else sucks donkey balls.

People are going to say "Ahem, Curry and Randolph have value!!!" Stop deluding yourselves. There's a reason the Knicks were the only team that pursued both players in the first place.


I admire you and Vdesai I seriously can't rank them even after seeing your rankings. I think Nate and Jones are way too high but maybe the phone conversations last longer. It's really that bad.

Thanks...

Anyway, the thing here is that there is this myth about all the "talent" Isiah has ammassed. Essentially, the problem here is that they all have obscene contracts, so the talent per dollar is towards the bottom of the league. This may not matter in New York, but it matters in the NBA trade market. No one wants to pay what we are paying for slightly-above-mediocre talent to the JAred Jeffries end of the spectrum.

(Talent) / (contract $) must be taken into consideration. Again, while it doesn't matter in NY, it matters pretty much everywhere else.

And that is why in the end "IT IS OUR MONEY"

I cannot make it anymore clear than this:

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TRADE VALUE. "OUR MONEY" MATTERS TO OTHER TEAMS IN TRADE DISCUSSIONS, which is what this thread is about.


Bip's statement I took to mean "we gave ourselves little to no options when making these moves", so it's literally our money!


Supreme you're right. How does a GM such as ours Pigeon Hole himself move after move?
LMFAO @ the Bio [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephon_Marbury[/url]
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
12/26/2007  3:18 PM
IMO, players w/the most trade value in order:

1 - lottery pick
2 - David Lee
3 - Jamal Crawford
4 - Eddy Curry
5 - Renaldo Balkman
6 - Wilson Chandler
7 - Fred Jones
8 - Malik Rose
9 - Nate Robinson
10 - Mardy Collins
11 - Randolph Morris
12 - Quentin Richardson
13 - Jared Jefferies
14 - Zach Randolph
15 - Stephon Marbury
16 - Big Turd
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
TrueBlue
Posts: 29144
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 9/20/2006
Member: #1172
12/26/2007  3:21 PM
Posted by TMS:

IMO, players w/the most trade value in order:

1 - lottery pick
2 - David Lee
3 - Jamal Crawford
4 - Eddy Curry
5 - Renaldo Balkman
6 - Wilson Chandler
7 - Fred Jones
8 - Malik Rose
9 - Nate Robinson
10 - Mardy Collins
11 - Randolph Morris
12 - Quentin Richardson
13 - Jared Jefferies
14 - Zach Randolph
15 - Stephon Marbury
16 - Big Turd


There's no way Zach and Curry are that far apart.
LMFAO @ the Bio [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephon_Marbury[/url]
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
12/26/2007  3:23 PM
Posted by TMS:

IMO, players w/the most trade value in order:

1 - lottery pick
2 - David Lee
3 - Jamal Crawford
4 - Eddy Curry
5 - Renaldo Balkman
6 - Wilson Chandler
7 - Fred Jones
8 - Malik Rose
9 - Nate Robinson
10 - Mardy Collins
11 - Randolph Morris
12 - Quentin Richardson
13 - Jared Jefferies
14 - Zach Randolph
15 - Stephon Marbury
16 - Big Turd


IMO this is the worst list ever sorry.
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
12/26/2007  3:27 PM
Posted by bitty41:
Posted by TMS:

IMO, players w/the most trade value in order:

1 - lottery pick
2 - David Lee
3 - Jamal Crawford
4 - Eddy Curry
5 - Renaldo Balkman
6 - Wilson Chandler
7 - Fred Jones
8 - Malik Rose
9 - Nate Robinson
10 - Mardy Collins
11 - Randolph Morris
12 - Quentin Richardson
13 - Jared Jefferies
14 - Zach Randolph
15 - Stephon Marbury
16 - Big Turd


IMO this is the worst list ever sorry.

IMO u should post ur own list if u disagree w/mine.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
TrueBlue
Posts: 29144
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 9/20/2006
Member: #1172
12/26/2007  3:28 PM
Posted by bitty41:
Posted by TMS:

IMO, players w/the most trade value in order:

1 - lottery pick
2 - David Lee
3 - Jamal Crawford
4 - Eddy Curry
5 - Renaldo Balkman
6 - Wilson Chandler
7 - Fred Jones
8 - Malik Rose
9 - Nate Robinson
10 - Mardy Collins
11 - Randolph Morris
12 - Quentin Richardson
13 - Jared Jefferies
14 - Zach Randolph
15 - Stephon Marbury
16 - Big Turd


IMO this is the worst list ever sorry.

If TMS took out his emotions he could modify this a tad. At least he made a list I still need major help.
LMFAO @ the Bio [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephon_Marbury[/url]
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
12/26/2007  3:31 PM
Posted by TrueBlue:
Posted by TMS:

IMO, players w/the most trade value in order:

1 - lottery pick
2 - David Lee
3 - Jamal Crawford
4 - Eddy Curry
5 - Renaldo Balkman
6 - Wilson Chandler
7 - Fred Jones
8 - Malik Rose
9 - Nate Robinson
10 - Mardy Collins
11 - Randolph Morris
12 - Quentin Richardson
13 - Jared Jefferies
14 - Zach Randolph
15 - Stephon Marbury
16 - Big Turd


There's no way Zach and Curry are that far apart.

i put them that way because of the contracts involved... it's not like being 7 places apart means they have that much more or less value... it's relative... not many players on this team have much trade value at this point after the lottery pick... even David Lee's value has gone down this season.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
Bippity10
Posts: 13999
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2004
Member: #574
12/26/2007  3:31 PM
Posted by TrueBlue:
Posted by SupremeCommander:
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by SupremeCommander:
Posted by TrueBlue:
Posted by SupremeCommander:

Who has the most trade value on the Knicks (excluding Lee)? Good question...

Here's my rank:
(1) Nate Robinson - He's a sparkplug on a good contract with some upside. Maybe we could get a scrub a mid-level first rounder. Let the record show I am NOT much of a Nate fan... sad that I have him #1.

(2) Jamal Crawford - any team looking for some scoring punch--especially from the bench--would want him. Maybe we could get an expiring for him.

(3) Fred Jones - He's an older Nate Robinson and I could see a contender wanting him. So, a very late first rounder is probably what could be had for him.

(4) Rose - people discredit him ALL THE TIME, but on a good team he'd be valued. I'm not saying by much because of his contract, but teams STILL pursue Darryl Armstong for his leadership, and that dude is 39. He could probably be swapped for a QRich-type player (overpaid for wahtever reason, but in theory a decent skillset)

(5) Balkman - Maybe a second round pick.

(6) Morris - Maybe an NBDL player.

No one else makes my list. Everyone else sucks donkey balls.

People are going to say "Ahem, Curry and Randolph have value!!!" Stop deluding yourselves. There's a reason the Knicks were the only team that pursued both players in the first place.


I admire you and Vdesai I seriously can't rank them even after seeing your rankings. I think Nate and Jones are way too high but maybe the phone conversations last longer. It's really that bad.

Thanks...

Anyway, the thing here is that there is this myth about all the "talent" Isiah has ammassed. Essentially, the problem here is that they all have obscene contracts, so the talent per dollar is towards the bottom of the league. This may not matter in New York, but it matters in the NBA trade market. No one wants to pay what we are paying for slightly-above-mediocre talent to the JAred Jeffries end of the spectrum.

(Talent) / (contract $) must be taken into consideration. Again, while it doesn't matter in NY, it matters pretty much everywhere else.

And that is why in the end "IT IS OUR MONEY"

I cannot make it anymore clear than this:

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TRADE VALUE. "OUR MONEY" MATTERS TO OTHER TEAMS IN TRADE DISCUSSIONS, which is what this thread is about.


Bip's statement I took to mean "we gave ourselves little to no options when making these moves", so it's literally our money!


Supreme you're right. How does a GM such as ours Pigeon Hole himself move after move?

You are correct. Thanks Blue
I just hope that people will like me
Page 4 of 6 « First‹ Previous 2  3  4  5  6 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Who Has The Most Trade Value On Our Team....Lee Excluded!
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