Go Melo --- go score some points and take some shots.

fwk00 wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:Harkless and crabbe have 3 years left on horrific contracts. If they were picking higher, itd be worth it, but no way is it worth taking more than 1 of these for pick 15.

The Harkless bottleneck I have is that a year or two ago, Harkless was advertisng himself as a Melo-lite clone. I can imagine the conversation in MSG in which someone suggests to Phil, "let's get another Melo". Been there, done that.

You also have to remember that these mid-lottery picks are as good as powerball tickets in terms of getting a solid return. If you are going to gamble based on taking on a contract as undesirable as Crabbe's then you have to get back a lot more than 15.

In the trade I suggested earlier, I added Connaughton to the deal because he's a hustle, decent system fit, likely second-team player who at least has more utility than a failed lottery pick at this point in time. In other words, if Crabbe is not productive and the picks are D-Leaguers you really need *somebody* to point to who can justify or minimize the risk of the transaction.

I think the other thing to keep in mind is if, in fact, Portland is attempting to balance its books - tit for tat trades that don't move the needle simply don't get Portland down that road. At least one of Crabbe or Turner is likely moving. The rest of the roster is nickels and dimes in relative comparison AND the rest of the roster are more productive per dollar.

With the Blazers positioned to be well over the cap next season, I could see them being willing to dump BOTH Turner and Crabbe who provide them marginal utility at $35 million combined salary per year. For that hefty a pricetag, I can't help but think they'd be willing to pony up that 15th pick. The only holdup would be the fact that Justin Jackson would likely be available at 15th and he would fit the Blazers wonderfully. But as far as Turner and Crabber are concerned, I think they'd be willing to dump both.

That being said, could Crabbe live up to that contract with us?

NardDogNation wrote:Would Lance Thomas, $3million, the 44th and 58th pick for Evan Turner, Allen Crabbe and the 15th pick be out of the question?

IMHO, the best litmus test on the trade value of any individual Knicks, against the current NBA marketplace, comes down to this series of questions,

( Lets use Lance Thomas as an example)

- Against every other NON PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, would Lance Thomas even be on said team and roster in the first place?
- Would he even be in the rotation?
- Would he be a starter?
- Against every other NON PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, how many of their THIRD UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many 2ND UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many of their NON ROTATION GUYS would be instant rotation players for the Knicks?

- Against every other PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, would Lance Thomas even be on said team and roster in the first place?
- Would he even be in their rotation?
- Would he be a starter?
- Against every other PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, how many of their THIRD UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many 2ND UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many of their NON ROTATION GUYS would be instant rotation players for the Knicks?

Ron Baker was available to the Knicks because there are plenty of teams who simply did not have room for him on their roster. Their 2nd and 3rd unit guys either had more pedigree or more potential. If Ron Baker is a starter on the Knicks and he would not even be on a playoff team's roster, nor on a non playoff teams rotation, what does that say? ( I like Ron Baker personally, as a fan, he's great, I like how he plays, but objectively, his desirability and value derive from working against a different teams range of full options)

Could someone like Lance Thomas be useful to a team like the Warriors as a minimum contract guy? Sure, but he's not a minimum contract guy.

With a guy like Evan Turner, other teams are going to just not find anything on the FA market, lots of teams can carve out cap space or will have cap space, when options dry out, his desirability will go up. There's a massive difference between a BAD PLAYER and a BAD CONTRACT. Bargnani on the Knicks was a bad player on a bad contract. Joe Johnson on the Hawks as a good player on a bad contract. Johnson wasn't producing at the level to justify that kind of salary, but it's not like he was a net negative player.

Lance Thomas IMHO is an energy guy/fringe D League talent who is a grinder and has no business getting a 4 year contract. He does not play with actual discipline. The more minutes you give him, the more his limitations come to bear in games. He doesn't shoot 3 pointers at a volume to justify his salary. He is only going to give you set shot open three pointers. His value comes in the contrast of playing with some truly douchebag selfish teammates who don't give energy and don't care and don't play defense. When the bar is closing at 2AM, the girl who is kind of cute with chipped teeth and a muffin top doesn't start to look so bad. That's Lance Thomas, a 2AM compromise after a crappy week.

The Knicks have massive talent problem. Part of the bias is that fans here see these players all the time. They are going to overestimate their value based on exposure, and to some degree, recency bias.

There are a ton of teams where Lance Thomas does not even make the other teams roster. There are a lot of teams where he would not sniff their basic rotation. So why would they trade for him?

When people say, Lance Thomas has VALUE!, they are looking at his value to the Knicks. His value to other teams is much more simple ( baseline test for roster hold and rotation placement), but also much more complicated ( looking past home town bias)

If a team can do better, it would. And it will. The Knicks only get a deal if they are the best option out of all options out there, and if Lance Thomas wouldn't even make another teams rotation, why would they trade for him? Apply many Knicks as a fill in the blank for Lance Thomas, and you start to see a pattern.

Nalod wrote:You guys think Paul Allan gives a **** about the tax?
You think they just woke up and said "Whoa, wtf we doing, we need to dump these contracts NOW??"

I think he does. It's one of the reasons he joined renowned dickheads Robert Sarver and Dan Gilbert in handicapping player salaries during the last CBA negotiations.

But I think the Allen group would be moreso concerned about their ability to add talent at a future date than the luxury tax bill itself considering that they are only an 8th seed caliber team. Even as the second wealthiest owner in the league, the rules are the rules, which make it difficult to stockpile expensive talent with things like repeater tax in play.

TripleThreat wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:Would Lance Thomas, $3million, the 44th and 58th pick for Evan Turner, Allen Crabbe and the 15th pick be out of the question?

IMHO, the best litmus test on the trade value of any individual Knicks, against the current NBA marketplace, comes down to this series of questions,

( Lets use Lance Thomas as an example)

- Against every other NON PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, would Lance Thomas even be on said team and roster in the first place?
- Would he even be in the rotation?
- Would he be a starter?
- Against every other NON PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, how many of their THIRD UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many 2ND UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many of their NON ROTATION GUYS would be instant rotation players for the Knicks?

- Against every other PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, would Lance Thomas even be on said team and roster in the first place?
- Would he even be in their rotation?
- Would he be a starter?
- Against every other PLAYOFF TEAM in the league, how many of their THIRD UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many 2ND UNIT GUYS would be instant starters on the Knicks?
- How many of their NON ROTATION GUYS would be instant rotation players for the Knicks?

Ron Baker was available to the Knicks because there are plenty of teams who simply did not have room for him on their roster. Their 2nd and 3rd unit guys either had more pedigree or more potential. If Ron Baker is a starter on the Knicks and he would not even be on a playoff team's roster, nor on a non playoff teams rotation, what does that say? ( I like Ron Baker personally, as a fan, he's great, I like how he plays, but objectively, his desirability and value derive from working against a different teams range of full options)

Could someone like Lance Thomas be useful to a team like the Warriors as a minimum contract guy? Sure, but he's not a minimum contract guy.

With a guy like Evan Turner, other teams are going to just not find anything on the FA market, lots of teams can carve out cap space or will have cap space, when options dry out, his desirability will go up. There's a massive difference between a BAD PLAYER and a BAD CONTRACT. Bargnani on the Knicks was a bad player on a bad contract. Joe Johnson on the Hawks as a good player on a bad contract. Johnson wasn't producing at the level to justify that kind of salary, but it's not like he was a net negative player.

Lance Thomas IMHO is an energy guy/fringe D League talent who is a grinder and has no business getting a 4 year contract. He does not play with actual discipline. The more minutes you give him, the more his limitations come to bear in games. He doesn't shoot 3 pointers at a volume to justify his salary. He is only going to give you set shot open three pointers. His value comes in the contrast of playing with some truly douchebag selfish teammates who don't give energy and don't care and don't play defense. When the bar is closing at 2AM, the girl who is kind of cute with chipped teeth and a muffin top doesn't start to look so bad. That's Lance Thomas, a 2AM compromise after a crappy week.

The Knicks have massive talent problem. Part of the bias is that fans here see these players all the time. They are going to overestimate their value based on exposure, and to some degree, recency bias.

There are a ton of teams where Lance Thomas does not even make the other teams roster. There are a lot of teams where he would not sniff their basic rotation. So why would they trade for him?

When people say, Lance Thomas has VALUE!, they are looking at his value to the Knicks. His value to other teams is much more simple ( baseline test for roster hold and rotation placement), but also much more complicated ( looking past home town bias)

If a team can do better, it would. And it will. The Knicks only get a deal if they are the best option out of all options out there, and if Lance Thomas wouldn't even make another teams rotation, why would they trade for him? Apply many Knicks as a fill in the blank for Lance Thomas, and you start to see a pattern.

LOL @ Lance Thomas being compared to a 2am compromise. At the end of the day (night in this context), there is still some utility there. As they say, sometimes you got to plow a 4 to appreciate a 10.

But you are presupposing that the Blazers do the deal on the basis of talent instead of finance. However, teams make trades based on financial concerns all of the time. The Clippers didn't dump Jared Dudley's contract in 2012 to improve the team; they did so because it offered some financial flexibility to make moves at a later date. Same thing with the Heat having let go Mario Chalmers, Chris Andersen and the like in recent years. The basis of the deal I am proposing is no different and would immediately save the Blazers $28 million per season moving forward; potentially saving them a year or so from being a tax repeater team. As much as the cap has exploded, $28 million is not exactly chump change- representing a little less than a third of the cap.

I know Paul Allen is one of the three wealthiest owners in the league but the Blazers still need to be fiscally prudent in building their team. If they are capped out, it makes it that more difficult considering that they are projected to be a borderline playoff team in a deep Western Conference. Dumping that salary allows free agency to once again be viable tool to further their development. Because of that, I think they'd be inclined to make the trade especially given the fact that Thomas fits what they want to do next to Lillard and McCullom.

nykshaknbake wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:Would Lance Thomas, $3million, the 44th and 58th pick for Evan Turner, Allen Crabbe and the 15th pick be out of the question?

With the Blazers positioned to be well over the cap next season, I could see them being willing to dump BOTH Turner and Crabbe who provide them marginal utility at $35 million combined salary per year. For that hefty a pricetag, I can't help but think they'd be willing to pony up that 15th pick. The only holdup would be the fact that Justin Jackson would likely be available at 15th and he would fit the Blazers wonderfully. But as far as Turner and Crabber are concerned, I think they'd be willing to dump both.

That being said, could Crabbe live up to that contract with us?

I bet Portland would do it. It would be a bad one for us. Crabbe and Turner have bad contracts. Turner isn't a shooter and Crabbe is just bad. Absorbing Turner or Crabbe should be enough by itself to get the 15th pick and even then I don't know if it's really something the team should do.

Why not? It is a net gain of $28 million to our payroll over the next 3 years BUT we should be able to handle that just fine. We have no major players we would have to re-sign during this period and would be building through the draft, which offers rotation players on cap controlled contracts. Moving forward, we should still have cap flexibility to make similar moves ESPECIALLY if Carmelo is inevitably traded. So give me that pick over any bogus cap space, anyday.

And a plus is that Allen Crabbe and Evan Turner might actually look a lot better in our system, which could help justify some of their expense. I wouldn't be surprised if by year 2 or 3, Allen Crabbe becomes a piece that a playoff wants at the trade deadline since the risks in his contract would be so heavily mitigated by its impending expiration. It's happened before where once bad contracts become appealing/acceptable under these circumstances (see Jose Calderon, Raymond Felton , Steve Novak and JR Smith).

NardDogNation wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:Would Lance Thomas, $3million, the 44th and 58th pick for Evan Turner, Allen Crabbe and the 15th pick be out of the question?

With the Blazers positioned to be well over the cap next season, I could see them being willing to dump BOTH Turner and Crabbe who provide them marginal utility at $35 million combined salary per year. For that hefty a pricetag, I can't help but think they'd be willing to pony up that 15th pick. The only holdup would be the fact that Justin Jackson would likely be available at 15th and he would fit the Blazers wonderfully. But as far as Turner and Crabber are concerned, I think they'd be willing to dump both.

That being said, could Crabbe live up to that contract with us?

I bet Portland would do it. It would be a bad one for us. Crabbe and Turner have bad contracts. Turner isn't a shooter and Crabbe is just bad. Absorbing Turner or Crabbe should be enough by itself to get the 15th pick and even then I don't know if it's really something the team should do.

Why not? It is a net gain of $28 million to our payroll over the next 3 years BUT we should be able to handle that just fine. We have no major players we would have to re-sign during this period and would be building through the draft, which offers rotation players on cap controlled contracts. Moving forward, we should still have cap flexibility to make similar moves ESPECIALLY if Carmelo is inevitably traded. So give me that pick over any bogus cap space, anyday.

And a plus is that Allen Crabbe and Evan Turner might actually look a lot better in our system, which could help justify some of their expense. I wouldn't be surprised if by year 2 or 3, Allen Crabbe becomes a piece that a playoff wants at the trade deadline since the risks in his contract would be so heavily mitigated by its impending expiration. It's happened before where once bad contracts become appealing/acceptable under these circumstances (see Jose Calderon, Raymond Felton , Steve Novak and JR Smith).

28 million is a lot...Usually that kind of relief gets you better than the 15th pick..let alone the 15th pick minus 2 other draft picks. It's just a bad value.