MS wrote:This trade will continue to be the most polarizing in the history of the franchise, but when you really break it down this trade robbed us of our depth, flexibility and turned a superstar into a complimentary all-star.
When you supposedly have the best frontcourt in the NBA there is no excuse to get manhandled on the boards and blown out on back to back nights.

The combination of Chandler, Felton, Gallo outweighs what Carmelo brings. We have no offensive cohesion, there is no ball movement, guys are just standing around and we have no one left to space the floor. The trade also negatively impacted our remaining starters; Landry looks lost out there and Amare looks like a completely different player.

We have a center and power forward who thrive on playing with talented point guards and we have no one to get them the ball. We allowed a player with virtually no options play in New Jersey or resign with Denver to gut our team because he wasn’t savvy enough to sign the same contracts that Lebron, Wade and Bosh entered into.

When you’re season depends on Baron Davis and rookie; it’s sobering especially since paying three guys 52MM. I know it's a short season, but we don't have defensive guys to fall back on. Intensity shouldn't take nights off.

Dude it's been 3 games. Offensive cohesion takes time, especially! Our starting PG is on the mend and our injured rook will play a huge roll on this team. They got blown out by a good Warriors team who just came off of beating the Bulls and the Lakers. Kobe was hitting everything that game and they were in it until the 4th quarter run. So the defense was better before? This team is much better than before.

MarburyAnd1Crossover wrote:

holfresh wrote:I really want to understand what a thread like this is about...Does it mean that we keep the players we drafted like DLee and Gallo and run with that..We will be happy with a 30 win team and really like the players because we draft them and be done with it...Or does it mean we stop at signing Amare and be happy with a 40 win team and flirt with getting to the playoffs every year and be happy with that??..Or the idea of buying players to content is just revolting and we are cheating in some way...Killing our future means what really?? That after 4 years we can't really blow it up.... Keep the players we have and be stagnant winning 30/40 games for 4/5 years is now desirable and do it over again...Trading for stars to make a run at a Championship is no longer desirable...I really don't understand... Clue me in, I know there are a lot of unhappy people here as a result of the trade...I want to understand...Having Gallo is ok even if it means we win 40 games and get bumped in the first round...What??..I want to know...

For me, it's Melo. Any star other than Melo and I would be much happier.

But he's young and there is much time, so it might all turn out ok. I just never put Melo up there with the likes of LeBron or Dwight or DRose.

He's a big scorer, he doesn't seem to make the entire team play better, like they are some machine with a lot of oil in it.

You can't have it both ways tho...The trade is ok if we end up winning, and if we don't win it all, I told you so, we should have stuck with our guys or try to get a star that you are comfortable with?..Those other stars haven't won where they are playing either...I would say DHow team is in a worse state than ours..

a lot of fans here overvalue our homegrown guys. it's natural and i've certainly done it over the years.

it comes down to a difference of opinion, i guess.

though i have to say, i don't think donnie would have built the same team that dolan(isiah)/grunwald have built.

i would have liked to see how donnie played it if he had been kept in charge of the melo trade - see if he would have walked away or what.

conceivably, the knicks could have had enough cap room and pieces to make a move for chris paul and tyson chandler if they didn't do the melo trade.

we'll never know though, i guess.

but if we could go back in time, i'd just want to see how donnie would've have seen his plan through.

gunsnewing wrote:hmm good point. There is a possibility that we would've been better off backing out of the melo trade. Still trading the same players but for pieces that fit. Paul/Amare/Tyson would've been great. but Dolan needed to raise ticket prices right away with the garden renovations. So can't really fault them I guess.

This, this!

It's not that I'm stuck on the players we shipped, it's that I would have shipped them in some wiser way!

You're telling me we couldn't have turned Gallo, Chandler, Felton, Mozgov into some top Point?

holfresh wrote:

MarburyAnd1Crossover wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:hmm good point. There is a possibility that we would've been better off backing out of the melo trade. Still trading the same players but for pieces that fit. Paul/Amare/Tyson would've been great. but Dolan needed to raise ticket prices right away with the garden renovations. So can't really fault them I guess.

This, this!

It's not that I'm stuck on the players we shipped, it's that I would have shipped them in some wiser way!

You're telling me we couldn't have turned Gallo, Chandler, Felton, Mozgov into some top Point?

Who is that point and what would your team look like ..Cause when BD gets going we gonna have a bad ass team..

I don't know who the point is. But when you want to get something done, you get it done. Those four players could have been flipped in some way for a top point. Or at least a very good leading point. What about a Rubio?

I can't hang my hat on BDiddy. By the time he puts on a Knicks uni, he will be almost a year removed from any NBA action. We didn't sign him for peanuts without reason.

MarburyAnd1Crossover wrote:

holfresh wrote:

MarburyAnd1Crossover wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:hmm good point. There is a possibility that we would've been better off backing out of the melo trade. Still trading the same players but for pieces that fit. Paul/Amare/Tyson would've been great. but Dolan needed to raise ticket prices right away with the garden renovations. So can't really fault them I guess.

This, this!

It's not that I'm stuck on the players we shipped, it's that I would have shipped them in some wiser way!

You're telling me we couldn't have turned Gallo, Chandler, Felton, Mozgov into some top Point?

Who is that point and what would your team look like ..Cause when BD gets going we gonna have a bad ass team..

I don't know who the point is. But when you want to get something done, you get it done. Those four players could have been flipped in some way for a top point. Or at least a very good leading point. What about a Rubio?

I can't hang my hat on BDiddy. By the time he puts on a Knicks uni, he will be almost a year removed from any NBA action. We didn't sign him for peanuts without reason.

That's my point, In real life you can't say I'm gonna get this guy or that...They have to base their decisions on who is available...And does that mean you now have a winner...The other team is getting rid of them or can't keep them because they haven't won...Ain't that easy...

MarburyAnd1Crossover wrote:

JCrusher wrote:I never like the trade because of what we gave up. I mean if we kept felton and mozgov i would have felt a lot better. even though I like Chandler and gallo i felt that Melo would still be worth it as long as we just gave up yhose guys and picks. i mean we held all the cards and yet we still got raped. i know a lot of people never blame melo for anything but this was his fault. i mean if we really wanted to come to new york he would have waited for us to sign him so we still could have kept out depth or we could have used them as trade chips to get dwight or paul

Do you remember? every day there was some new demand from Denver. And we kept piling it on.

Who gave up more in their big trade last season, Nets or Knicks? I think Knicks.

CashMoney wrote:

JCrusher wrote:

MarburyAnd1Crossover wrote:

JCrusher wrote:I never like the trade because of what we gave up. I mean if we kept felton and mozgov i would have felt a lot better. even though I like Chandler and gallo i felt that Melo would still be worth it as long as we just gave up yhose guys and picks. i mean we held all the cards and yet we still got raped. i know a lot of people never blame melo for anything but this was his fault. i mean if we really wanted to come to new york he would have waited for us to sign him so we still could have kept out depth or we could have used them as trade chips to get dwight or paul

Do you remember? every day there was some new demand from Denver. And we kept piling it on.

Who gave up more in their big trade last season, Nets or Knicks? I think Knicks.

Ya that was the classic isiah thomas trade. trade all your depth,draft,and future for a good offenseive player. I mean people get on donnie for getting amare but after lebron and bosh went to miami he ws our best option. And he had a great MVP type season last year. Melo doesn't care about a ring he got his money before the lockout and that was it

Melo wants a ring. Do you really think he wants to be talked about the way people talk about Ewing, Malone, Stockton, Barkley, etc.?

I don't think these guys really give a **** either way, to be perfectly honest with you.

20$, 30$, 40$+ million effectively puts you above the rest of the world, the 'system'; you don't share concerns with the regular guys.

But on the other hand, you do play for the win, that's just innate, I would think.

Bahhh.

JCrusher wrote:My problem with melo is that he could have gone to knicks without the knicks having to give up everything they had. I mean lebron as much as i hate him could have made double if he wanted. i mean if we signed melo we would have depth and we could have used those pieces for either dwight or paul

It would have been bad business for Melo to sign with us as a FA with the lock out looming and he had no idea what the collective barganing agreement would look like. Turns out, had he waited, he would have missed out on a ton of money being that FA's can sign with a new team for a yr less than before.