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

Memphis newspaper poppin s*** on Donnie and D'antoni's name
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 4 of 6 « First‹ Previous 2  3  4  5  6 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
kam77
Posts: 27664
Alba Posts: 25
Joined: 3/17/2004
Member: #634
9/12/2008  12:28 PM
IF y'all think we're getting under the cap without GIVING UP something other than these horrible contracts you're out of your mind. We will be using our picks and youth to move some of these contracts. Get used to that idea.
lol @ being BANNED by Martin since 11/07/10 (for asking if Mr. Earl had a point). Really, Martin? C'mon. This is the internet. I've seen much worse on this site. By Earl himself. Drop the hypocrisy.
AUTOADVERT
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
9/12/2008  12:38 PM
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by kam77:

The longer we wait the bigger the risk that Zach comes in out of shape, not particularly motivated to be a team player since he knows he's a goner anyways, and perhaps he pouts... or maybe he gets hurt... or maybe he punches out some more teammates and gets suspended.

This guy has also played exactly one 81 game season. He gets hurt or misses significant time almost every year.
That's a good point. For all we know, he could get injured mid season and need another microfracture surgery and then be IMPOSSIBLE to trade.

Which would put us right where we are today.
No, not true. Right now, Memphis is willing to take back $32 mil of his salary, give us a decent 7' prospect (Darko), and give to help take $10 mil off our cap in 2010 for Zach and a pick. You think they'd do that if he went down and needed another microfracture surgery?

So Bonn, as we continue to try to rebuild, you are okay with getting rid of yet another first round pick? When does this stop?
No, I'm OK with replacing a mid to late 1st round pick with Darko if doing so helps us get a lot of cap room in 2010 and I don't see trading Zach for Jaric as hurting the team in any way. (I actually see it as helping us rebuild.) Which part do you disagree with?

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 09-12-2008 10:38 AM]

The draft pick, I thought that was clear.
Now it's clear. It's still puzzling (actually astonishing to me) that a mid to late pick is more important to you than a young big man, cap space, removing Zach, and getting more time for Lee. I really think this deal is fair for both sides and we'll never get something better. If I ran Memphis and the Knicks made me this offer, I'd actually decline it.

you like Darko I don't. It's that simple. Just opinion dude, neither of us is right. If I was GM I wouldn't hop on this deal, unless they threw in another young player. I'm dealing from strength if I'm Donnie. Time to change the culture. No more dumping guys just to get rid of them, unless I am forced to. In the meantime, you give me what I want, or I stay the course. It's a good message being sent for future deals, but I think some of us are missing it.

Zach will be dealt. Just not on everyone's time frame.

I know very little about Darko--just that he's a 7 footer who blocks shots and doesn't do much else. He's just a role player like most mid/late 1st round picks. Pick a # like 18 and then look at who's been drafted there for the past ten years. You'll likely be extremely underwhelmed. Of course there are always rare exceptions but I wouldn't let the hope of a rare exception with a mid/late pick ruin my plan of having cap room in 2010. It's a poor gamble.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 09-12-2008 12:51 PM]
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
9/12/2008  12:39 PM
Posted by kam77:

IF y'all think we're getting under the cap without GIVING UP something other than these horrible contracts you're out of your mind. We will be using our picks and youth to move some of these contracts. Get used to that idea.
That's the best way to put it and that principle applies most strongly to our worst contract, which is Zach's. If you're not willing to give up picks and/or our young players, then you might as well admit that you're abandoning our plan to be competitive in the 2010 FA pool.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 09-12-2008 12:39 PM]
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
9/12/2008  12:43 PM
darko is a marginal starter. could be a good role player off the bench. he's not a guy that deserves to be out there for 30 mins a night. but he's still very young so he should still be developing.

the purpose of this deal is to solely dump $10 mil from the cap in 2010. that's really all there is to it.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
9/12/2008  12:52 PM
Posted by djsunyc:

darko is a marginal starter. could be a good role player off the bench. he's not a guy that deserves to be out there for 30 mins a night. but he's still very young so he should still be developing.

the purpose of this deal is to solely dump $10 mil from the cap in 2010. that's really all there is to it.
Then why would they even ask for Darko? I think it's clear that as a secondary benefit, they do want Darko. If Darko can be a good bench player, then that's better than what we've gotten out of most of our late picks.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 09-12-2008 12:53 PM]
joec32033
Posts: 30632
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 2/3/2004
Member: #583
USA
9/12/2008  1:19 PM
Personally, I would actually consider giving them a future #1 if the deal was something like Darko, Jaric, Antione(waive immediately)Walker and decline team option, and a 2nd for Zach, Jerome or Jefferies, and a future top 13 protected #1, and some type of filler(the Denver #2?).
~You can't run from who you are.~
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
9/12/2008  1:58 PM
Posted by djsunyc:

darko is a marginal starter. could be a good role player off the bench. he's not a guy that deserves to be out there for 30 mins a night. but he's still very young so he should still be developing.

the purpose of this deal is to solely dump $10 mil from the cap in 2010. that's really all there is to it.

getting Zach's negativity outta here & giving D Lee a chance to start games along w/gaining a legitimate backup C for Curry aren't reasons?
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
9/12/2008  2:01 PM
i'm fine w/giving up another pick as long as it's got heavy protection (like top 15) & we can also nab 1 of their young prospects to make up for it... Crittendon & heavy protection on the pick would be fine w/me to get rid of Zach's contract for example.
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
9/12/2008  2:26 PM
Posted by TMS:

i'm fine w/giving up another pick as long as it's got heavy protection (like top 15) & we can also nab 1 of their young prospects to make up for it... Crittendon & heavy protection on the pick would be fine w/me to get rid of Zach's contract for example.

I'm okay with somehting along those lines. I'm not for giving up a straight up draft pick and not getting a young guy in return and the pick not being protected. There is as good a chance as any that our own pick will be a top 3 pick as it is a mid 1st rounder. So the conditions around the pick are obviously very important in any deal.
I just hope that people will like me
Bippity10
Posts: 13999
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2004
Member: #574
9/12/2008  2:52 PM
Posted by kam77:

IF y'all think we're getting under the cap without GIVING UP something other than these horrible contracts you're out of your mind. We will be using our picks and youth to move some of these contracts. Get used to that idea.

That's the exact logic Isiah used to use.

We all know that it's not going to be easy to trade these guys. So again, why not wait? TMS has given the only acceptable(to me of course) reason for dumping him right away. His reason is that he wants to clear room so the young guys can play. I can see the logic and don't think it's way off. But it comes down to whether your coach wants to try to work with him. If Mike is talking to Donnie and saying let me get a few months with the guy, deal him if you get a great deal, otherwise see what I can do, I don't have a problem with my GM saying okay. As a matter of fact after the undermining that's been going on here, you almost have to. Again, we don't know what's going on. We are anxious to get rid of these guys we hate. So any deal that seems fair we want to hop on. I'm just trying to play devil's advocate which is often frowned upon.

I understand TMS' point of view, but I also can equally understand the idea behind, why not wait and see if you can drive up the value. Your team stinks anyway.
I just hope that people will like me
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
9/12/2008  3:08 PM
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by TMS:

i'm fine w/giving up another pick as long as it's got heavy protection (like top 15) & we can also nab 1 of their young prospects to make up for it... Crittendon & heavy protection on the pick would be fine w/me to get rid of Zach's contract for example.

I'm okay with somehting along those lines. I'm not for giving up a straight up draft pick and not getting a young guy in return and the pick not being protected. There is as good a chance as any that our own pick will be a top 3 pick as it is a mid 1st rounder. So the conditions around the pick are obviously very important in any deal.

i think something like that is better in principle to that rumored Philly trade in fact, since we would still be getting a pretty decent prospect in the package & would only have to give up the pick if it were out of the lottery... we'd also be getting a shotblocking backup C that we do have a need for.
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
9/12/2008  3:19 PM
Posted by TMS:
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by TMS:

i'm fine w/giving up another pick as long as it's got heavy protection (like top 15) & we can also nab 1 of their young prospects to make up for it... Crittendon & heavy protection on the pick would be fine w/me to get rid of Zach's contract for example.

I'm okay with somehting along those lines. I'm not for giving up a straight up draft pick and not getting a young guy in return and the pick not being protected. There is as good a chance as any that our own pick will be a top 3 pick as it is a mid 1st rounder. So the conditions around the pick are obviously very important in any deal.

i think something like that is better in principle to that rumored Philly trade in fact, since we would still be getting a pretty decent prospect in the package & would only have to give up the pick if it were out of the lottery... we'd also be getting a shotblocking backup C that we do have a need for.

See that's where I'm off on the Memphis trade. Of course we don't know what's really being offered. But as I understand it, they are looking for a say what you want about him 20-10 player, money and a pick. In return we are getting rid of Zach, a role player and a marginal player with potential. Now if you think Darko has the potential to really pan out, then this deal makes sense to you. If you think Darko is going to be what he is, a role playing big man, then you may as well hold out and try to get something else for Zach and then hope you get lucky with your own pick. For me, I'm just not a big Darko fan.

Now if Memphis gets serious(and we have no idea if they are) and starts throwing young guys into the deal, or lottery protecting picks then you have a different story. Unfortunately even with the papers we don't have the full story. Personally, I am just encouraged by the fact that our GM is playing a little hardball rather than taking it up the shoot like Isiah did all the time. I'd rather miss out on a deal than make another deal that hurts our cap space etc. It's a fine line. I can understand both points of view. I just don't understand killing the guy for choosing one point of view that to me makes just as much sense as the other. Either strategy we take, we better be right.



[Edited by - bippity10 on 12-09-2008 3:20 PM]
I just hope that people will like me
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
9/12/2008  3:24 PM
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by TMS:

i'm fine w/giving up another pick as long as it's got heavy protection (like top 15) & we can also nab 1 of their young prospects to make up for it... Crittendon & heavy protection on the pick would be fine w/me to get rid of Zach's contract for example.

I'm okay with somehting along those lines. I'm not for giving up a straight up draft pick and not getting a young guy in return and the pick not being protected. There is as good a chance as any that our own pick will be a top 3 pick as it is a mid 1st rounder. So the conditions around the pick are obviously very important in any deal.
Are you sure the pick would be this year's? I thought it couldn't be for a few years because you can't give up picks in consecutiv years and we're giving up our 2010 pick as part of the Marbury trade. I'm pretty sure it can't be before 2012.
Bippity10
Posts: 13999
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2004
Member: #574
9/12/2008  3:29 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by TMS:

i'm fine w/giving up another pick as long as it's got heavy protection (like top 15) & we can also nab 1 of their young prospects to make up for it... Crittendon & heavy protection on the pick would be fine w/me to get rid of Zach's contract for example.

I'm okay with somehting along those lines. I'm not for giving up a straight up draft pick and not getting a young guy in return and the pick not being protected. There is as good a chance as any that our own pick will be a top 3 pick as it is a mid 1st rounder. So the conditions around the pick are obviously very important in any deal.
Are you sure the pick would be this year's? I thought it couldn't be for a few years because you can't give up picks in consecutiv years and we're giving up our 2010 pick as part of the Marbury trade. I'm pretty sure it can't be before 2012.

Even if it's 2012 I think we need to be smart and not make assumptions as to what the position will be. I think you still have to play it like that pick will be extremely valuable to you.

Example: Say in 2010 lebron is a Knick. In 2010/11 Lebron has the knicks fighting for titles. In 2011/12 Lebron goes down with a season ending injury(ala David Robinson). Your team falls apart and you find yourself with a top lottery pick and in position to draft the next Tim Duncan and almost guarantee yourself 3 or 4 titles in the next 10 years as the two of them team up. Ooops, back in 2008 you gave up that pick so that you could get rid of Zach and didn't lottery protect it. Gotta be careful, you can't tell what will happen with these picks.

[Edited by - bippity10 on 12-09-2008 3:30 PM]
I just hope that people will like me
kam77
Posts: 27664
Alba Posts: 25
Joined: 3/17/2004
Member: #634
9/12/2008  4:59 PM
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by kam77:

IF y'all think we're getting under the cap without GIVING UP something other than these horrible contracts you're out of your mind. We will be using our picks and youth to move some of these contracts. Get used to that idea.

That's the exact logic Isiah used to use.

Isiah "won" almost every trade in terms of pure talent on paper. His thing was selling #1's to take on huge contracts. I'm saying, lets trade a #1 to rid ourselves of the bad contracts. Its not the same. Its prescriptive medicine so that the patient can heal. Not bootstrapping another useless body part on a cadaver.
We all know that it's not going to be easy to trade these guys. So again, why not wait? why not wait and see if you can drive up the value.

Waiting means that as we get closer to 2010 the price other teams want to extract from us goes UP because they know our options are dwindling

Zach cannot improve on 24/10. His value ceiling is pretty low. We've seen what his 21/10 stats bring in a trade: a Channing Frye and a huge contract with 2 yrs on it. So getting back Darko and Toine for example is like, BEST CASE scenario.

Waiting means risking Zach gets hurt and sees his value drop to ZERO.
lol @ being BANNED by Martin since 11/07/10 (for asking if Mr. Earl had a point). Really, Martin? C'mon. This is the internet. I've seen much worse on this site. By Earl himself. Drop the hypocrisy.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
9/12/2008  8:40 PM
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by TMS:

i'm fine w/giving up another pick as long as it's got heavy protection (like top 15) & we can also nab 1 of their young prospects to make up for it... Crittendon & heavy protection on the pick would be fine w/me to get rid of Zach's contract for example.

I'm okay with somehting along those lines. I'm not for giving up a straight up draft pick and not getting a young guy in return and the pick not being protected. There is as good a chance as any that our own pick will be a top 3 pick as it is a mid 1st rounder. So the conditions around the pick are obviously very important in any deal.
Are you sure the pick would be this year's? I thought it couldn't be for a few years because you can't give up picks in consecutiv years and we're giving up our 2010 pick as part of the Marbury trade. I'm pretty sure it can't be before 2012.

Even if it's 2012 I think we need to be smart and not make assumptions as to what the position will be. I think you still have to play it like that pick will be extremely valuable to you.

Example: Say in 2010 lebron is a Knick. In 2010/11 Lebron has the knicks fighting for titles. In 2011/12 Lebron goes down with a season ending injury(ala David Robinson). Your team falls apart and you find yourself with a top lottery pick and in position to draft the next Tim Duncan and almost guarantee yourself 3 or 4 titles in the next 10 years as the two of them team up. Ooops, back in 2008 you gave up that pick so that you could get rid of Zach and didn't lottery protect it. Gotta be careful, you can't tell what will happen with these picks.

[Edited by - bippity10 on 12-09-2008 3:30 PM]
Hopefully we'll have had two major FA signings (2011 too) and two lottery signings (2007 and 2009) by then and won't be dependent on any one player. That said, there won't be a Lebron in the first place but the default in the NBA is for picks to have significant protection (at least top 5) and I'll assume that unless shown otherwise. Just like I assume any guy has two balls unless shown otherwise. Maybe that wasn't the best anology actually.
Bippity10
Posts: 13999
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2004
Member: #574
9/13/2008  1:15 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by TMS:

i'm fine w/giving up another pick as long as it's got heavy protection (like top 15) & we can also nab 1 of their young prospects to make up for it... Crittendon & heavy protection on the pick would be fine w/me to get rid of Zach's contract for example.

I'm okay with somehting along those lines. I'm not for giving up a straight up draft pick and not getting a young guy in return and the pick not being protected. There is as good a chance as any that our own pick will be a top 3 pick as it is a mid 1st rounder. So the conditions around the pick are obviously very important in any deal.
Are you sure the pick would be this year's? I thought it couldn't be for a few years because you can't give up picks in consecutiv years and we're giving up our 2010 pick as part of the Marbury trade. I'm pretty sure it can't be before 2012.

Even if it's 2012 I think we need to be smart and not make assumptions as to what the position will be. I think you still have to play it like that pick will be extremely valuable to you.

Example: Say in 2010 lebron is a Knick. In 2010/11 Lebron has the knicks fighting for titles. In 2011/12 Lebron goes down with a season ending injury(ala David Robinson). Your team falls apart and you find yourself with a top lottery pick and in position to draft the next Tim Duncan and almost guarantee yourself 3 or 4 titles in the next 10 years as the two of them team up. Ooops, back in 2008 you gave up that pick so that you could get rid of Zach and didn't lottery protect it. Gotta be careful, you can't tell what will happen with these picks.

[Edited by - bippity10 on 12-09-2008 3:30 PM]
Hopefully we'll have had two major FA signings (2011 too) and two lottery signings (2007 and 2009) by then and won't be dependent on any one player. That said, there won't be a Lebron in the first place but the default in the NBA is for picks to have significant protection (at least top 5) and I'll assume that unless shown otherwise. Just like I assume any guy has two balls unless shown otherwise. Maybe that wasn't the best anology actually.

You'll assume because it fits your argument. But you have no idea what Memphis is asking for.
I just hope that people will like me
Bippity10
Posts: 13999
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2004
Member: #574
9/13/2008  1:17 PM
The point of all this is, as a fan we do not know the details of what is going on no matter what they papers are reporting. So personally when I know I don't know all the facts I find it difficult to sit back and say our front office is made up of a bunch of idiots for not making a particular deal.
I just hope that people will like me
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
9/13/2008  4:06 PM
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by TMS:

i'm fine w/giving up another pick as long as it's got heavy protection (like top 15) & we can also nab 1 of their young prospects to make up for it... Crittendon & heavy protection on the pick would be fine w/me to get rid of Zach's contract for example.

I'm okay with somehting along those lines. I'm not for giving up a straight up draft pick and not getting a young guy in return and the pick not being protected. There is as good a chance as any that our own pick will be a top 3 pick as it is a mid 1st rounder. So the conditions around the pick are obviously very important in any deal.
Are you sure the pick would be this year's? I thought it couldn't be for a few years because you can't give up picks in consecutiv years and we're giving up our 2010 pick as part of the Marbury trade. I'm pretty sure it can't be before 2012.

Even if it's 2012 I think we need to be smart and not make assumptions as to what the position will be. I think you still have to play it like that pick will be extremely valuable to you.

Example: Say in 2010 lebron is a Knick. In 2010/11 Lebron has the knicks fighting for titles. In 2011/12 Lebron goes down with a season ending injury(ala David Robinson). Your team falls apart and you find yourself with a top lottery pick and in position to draft the next Tim Duncan and almost guarantee yourself 3 or 4 titles in the next 10 years as the two of them team up. Ooops, back in 2008 you gave up that pick so that you could get rid of Zach and didn't lottery protect it. Gotta be careful, you can't tell what will happen with these picks.

[Edited by - bippity10 on 12-09-2008 3:30 PM]
Hopefully we'll have had two major FA signings (2011 too) and two lottery signings (2007 and 2009) by then and won't be dependent on any one player. That said, there won't be a Lebron in the first place but the default in the NBA is for picks to have significant protection (at least top 5) and I'll assume that unless shown otherwise. Just like I assume any guy has two balls unless shown otherwise. Maybe that wasn't the best anology actually.

You'll assume because it fits your argument. But you have no idea what Memphis is asking for.
No, I assume because statistically the most common scenario should rationally always be the default assumption. If given no other information, would you not assume that someone driving a car is not blind?
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
9/13/2008  4:56 PM
Posted by Bippity10:

The point of all this is, as a fan we do not know the details of what is going on no matter what they papers are reporting. So personally when I know I don't know all the facts I find it difficult to sit back and say our front office is made up of a bunch of idiots for not making a particular deal.

i will never call them a buncha idiots for passing up the deal for the reasons u just pointed out, but i will be very disappointed if Zach is still on the roster when the season begins.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
Page 4 of 6 « First‹ Previous 2  3  4  5  6 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Memphis newspaper poppin s*** on Donnie and D'antoni's name
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