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

crazy question but would you trade curry AND frye for dwight howard?
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 5 of 6 « First‹ Previous 3  4  5  6 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
Marv
Posts: 35540
Alba Posts: 69
Joined: 9/2/2002
Member: #315
1/24/2006  10:40 AM
Posted by islesfan:

The point is that it was a bad team before Marbury got here and it could have been much worse if Isiah had done the sensible thing and dismantled it even further instead of looking to make a shortsighted run for the playoffs.

It's hardly unreasonable to think that a bad team like that could have finished with the 6th worst record in the league. And it's been already been proven that a 6th lottery seed could win the #1 overall pick.

Ergo, it is possible that the Knicks could have been in the running for Howard and Okafor if the Marbury trade had not happened. So Isiah is wrong yet again and seriously, isn't that what this is really about?

But Isles, what about the possibility that Dolan really hired Isiah on the BASIS of his agreeing to starphuck the place, get a big name in, throw some cash around and make a dramatic play for the playoffs? If you can entertain that possibility, then it doesn't change your disagreement with what he did, but perhaps gives a different light to why you think he did it. After all, in Toronto, he didn't go on a wild spending spree and load the team down with expensive deals on questionable talent, did he?
AUTOADVERT
Silverfuel
Posts: 31750
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 6/27/2002
Member: #268
USA
1/24/2006  10:43 AM
I agree joe and it sucks that I am a part of it. I got sucked in this time. As soon as the blame-game starts and people start pointing fingers at Marbury and Isiah on unrelated threads, the thread gets crappy.
Posted by McK1:

Fact is the Marbury trade blew a shot at getting the top pick.
Nope. Thats not a fact. You are assuming we would've had one of the worst records. Its a good assumption but its not a fact. And its still not a fact that the worst record gets you the top pick.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
1/24/2006  10:45 AM
Posted by Marv:
Posted by islesfan:

The point is that it was a bad team before Marbury got here and it could have been much worse if Isiah had done the sensible thing and dismantled it even further instead of looking to make a shortsighted run for the playoffs.

It's hardly unreasonable to think that a bad team like that could have finished with the 6th worst record in the league. And it's been already been proven that a 6th lottery seed could win the #1 overall pick.

Ergo, it is possible that the Knicks could have been in the running for Howard and Okafor if the Marbury trade had not happened. So Isiah is wrong yet again and seriously, isn't that what this is really about?

But Isles, what about the possibility that Dolan really hired Isiah on the BASIS of his agreeing to starphuck the place, get a big name in, throw some cash around and make a dramatic play for the playoffs? If you can entertain that possibility, then it doesn't change your disagreement with what he did, but perhaps gives a different light to why you think he did it. After all, in Toronto, he didn't go on a wild spending spree and load the team down with expensive deals on questionable talent, did he?

i think the gripes shouldn't be directed at isiah individually but at dolan/mills/isiah collectively. it seems that with the recent success of new, dirt cheap, rangers, dolan is now beginning to realize that the exhorbitant spending is not the way to go as he has already nixed the jalen deal a month ago. so maybe we are seeing a philosophical change in the organization but i think this deadline will be very telling...
gunsnewing
Posts: 55076
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 2/24/2002
Member: #215
USA
1/24/2006  11:02 AM
Posted by Marv:
Posted by islesfan:

The point is that it was a bad team before Marbury got here and it could have been much worse if Isiah had done the sensible thing and dismantled it even further instead of looking to make a shortsighted run for the playoffs.

It's hardly unreasonable to think that a bad team like that could have finished with the 6th worst record in the league. And it's been already been proven that a 6th lottery seed could win the #1 overall pick.

Ergo, it is possible that the Knicks could have been in the running for Howard and Okafor if the Marbury trade had not happened. So Isiah is wrong yet again and seriously, isn't that what this is really about?

But Isles, what about the possibility that Dolan really hired Isiah on the BASIS of his agreeing to starphuck the place, get a big name in, throw some cash around and make a dramatic play for the playoffs? If you can entertain that possibility, then it doesn't change your disagreement with what he did, but perhaps gives a different light to why you think he did it. After all, in Toronto, he didn't go on a wild spending spree and load the team down with expensive deals on questionable talent, did he?


thats how I feel. I'm not going to blame Isiah for Marbury completely but it would've been nice if we had hired a GM who had a clear cut plan and the ability to convince Dolan that all they had to do was let contracts expire and not add anymore salary, get high draft picks and make a run at a top flight free agent. At least someone with some trade value. Instead we got added a $20mm dollar player and got stuck with Penny and his $15mm. And the only players we could go after now are the Vin Baker, Rose, Taylor, Q, Crawford, JJ's off the world and I agree with DJ, Dolan and Mills get the blame too. I think it's time to fire Isiah and hopefully Mills goes with him and bring in a GM who won't make the same mistakes.
islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
1/24/2006  11:53 AM
Posted by Marv:
Posted by islesfan:

The point is that it was a bad team before Marbury got here and it could have been much worse if Isiah had done the sensible thing and dismantled it even further instead of looking to make a shortsighted run for the playoffs.

It's hardly unreasonable to think that a bad team like that could have finished with the 6th worst record in the league. And it's been already been proven that a 6th lottery seed could win the #1 overall pick.

Ergo, it is possible that the Knicks could have been in the running for Howard and Okafor if the Marbury trade had not happened. So Isiah is wrong yet again and seriously, isn't that what this is really about?

But Isles, what about the possibility that Dolan really hired Isiah on the BASIS of his agreeing to starphuck the place, get a big name in, throw some cash around and make a dramatic play for the playoffs? If you can entertain that possibility, then it doesn't change your disagreement with what he did, but perhaps gives a different light to why you think he did it. After all, in Toronto, he didn't go on a wild spending spree and load the team down with expensive deals on questionable talent, did he?

Even if those were the parameters in which Isiah took the job, he's still liable for any moves that he makes. That's not an excuse for making trades that don't work out and mortgage the future for the next few years. Layden didn't get to use that excuse and neither should Isiah.

But if that's what happened then what are we doing now? In Isiah's second year we're rebuilding but in his first we weren't? Where do you differentiate between moves that were meant to help us win now and the moves meant to rebuild? Or is it still one jumbled mess with no real plan and moves made trying to achieve both but end up sabotaging one another? (As in the proposed Rose trade which is a win now move at the expense of taking minutes away from younger players who are supposed to be the future. Or the Big Stiff signing which prevented them from signing a younger and cheaper player.)

In Toronto he didn't have ownership with the deep pockets that Cablevision has and the go ahead to use those resources as he saw fit.
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
MS
Posts: 27063
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/28/2004
Member: #724
1/24/2006  12:24 PM
Why not just trade for garnet and keep curry, let frye ariza, penny, davis and ad go in a deal for wally and KG

Steph/Craw
Nate
Wally
Garnett/Lee
Curry/James
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
1/24/2006  12:41 PM
It's hardly unreasonable to think that a bad team like that could have finished with the 6th worst record in the league. And it's been already been proven that a 6th lottery seed could win the #1 overall pick.
You have the wrong year in mind. The 6th lottery seed moved up in 2005, not 2004. The team represented by the 6th seed didn't move up in 2004. I fail to see how that would change if the sixth seeded ping pong balls had Knicks logos instead of some other team logos on them. We KNOW after the lottery that the only two teams that had a chance at Howard were the 1st and 2nd seeded lottery teams. The Knicks would have obviously needed the ping pong balls that were given to the 1st and 2nd seeded teams to have had a chance to get Howard. That means that after starting 14-21 before Marbury, they would have had to finish the season 6-41 to finish worse than Orlando. Good luck making the case that that would have happened!

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 01-24-2006 12:41 PM]
islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
1/24/2006  12:49 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
It's hardly unreasonable to think that a bad team like that could have finished with the 6th worst record in the league. And it's been already been proven that a 6th lottery seed could win the #1 overall pick.
You have the wrong year in mind. The 6th lottery seed moved up in 2005, not 2004. The team represented by the 6th seed didn't move up in 2004. I fail to see how that would change if the sixth seeded ping pong balls had Knicks logos instead of some other team logos on them. We KNOW after the lottery that the only two teams that had a chance at Howard were the 1st and 2nd seeded lottery teams. The Knicks would have obviously needed the ping pong balls that were given to the 1st and 2nd seeded teams to have had a chance to get Howard. That means that after starting 14-21 before Marbury, they would have had to finish the season 6-41 to finish worse than Orlando. Good luck making the case that that would have happened!

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 01-24-2006 12:41 PM]

What are you talking about??? Nobody is talking about a specific year, just the fact that it's been known to happen that the 6th lottery seed has won the lottery for the #1 overall pick. What makes you think that everything else would remain exactly the same that year if the Knicks had tanked and gotten a higher lottery seed? It's not a simple matter of switching logos on the balls that were already chosen, you idiot. We're talking about the possibility that the Knicks could have gotten a higher lottery seed and a chance at Howard or Okafor. We say that it's a possibility and you're saying that it's an absolute fact that it wouldn't have happened. i.e. we're right and you're wrong.
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
joec32033
Posts: 30631
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 2/3/2004
Member: #583
USA
1/24/2006  12:51 PM
The confusion factor on this thread ranks right up there with the REALGM table about guys who signed one year contracts so teams can keep their Bird Rights.
~You can't run from who you are.~
Killa4luv
Posts: 27769
Alba Posts: 51
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261
USA
1/24/2006  1:11 PM
so lets argue about the possibility that a pick that we traded away could have been the #1 pick? This is ridiculous.

There is a possibility that we could have gotten the #1 pick. That possibility was remote. However, we can hypothesize what record we would have had and where we would have picked without the Steph trade and I don't think its reasonable to assume we would have had the #1 or #2 pick.

With the pick that we most reasonably would have had without the Steph trade, we ALREADY know that those other slots did not win the #1 or #2 pick. We can argue over slight possibilities, or we can discuss what is mathmatically, and reasonably most likely.

Is it a possibility that the knicks could have gotten the #1 pick being the 6th seed? Yes.
Has it happened before? Yes, once.
Is it highly unlikely? Yes.
Does it make some people sound bitter when they need to reach back into time to discuss highly unlikely-hypothetical scenarios in order to make a move that they did not like seem exponentially worse?
Yes.

Its stupid to try to equate the Steph trade with passing up on Dwight Howard.

Dwight Howard could have been drafted by New York and got high on cocaine and died. Thats a possibility as well, and that has happened as well. So lets rejoice that we didn't tank and get the #1 pick who died from a cocaine overdose.

[Edited by - killa4luv on 01-24-2006 1:13 PM]
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
1/24/2006  1:19 PM
i think a more realistic argument is who would you rather have now, where we are as a team, in rebuild mode, andre iguodla or steph?
joec32033
Posts: 30631
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 2/3/2004
Member: #583
USA
1/24/2006  1:19 PM
I want to argue my point on this thread, but when i start typing a post to put on this thread....my head starts to hurt....
~You can't run from who you are.~
islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
1/24/2006  1:20 PM
Posted by Killa4luv:

so lets argue about the possibility that a pick that we traded away could have been the #1 pick? This is ridiculous.

There is a possibility that we could have gotten the #1 pick. That possibility was remote. However, we can hypothesize what record we would have had and where we would have picked without the Steph trade and I don't think its reasonable to assume we would have had the #1 or #2 pick.

With the pick that we most reasonably would have had without the Steph trade, we ALREADY know that those other slots did not win the #1 or #2 pick. We can argue over slight possibilities, or we can discuss what is mathmatically, and reasonably most likely.

Is it a possibility that the knicks could have gotten the #1 pick being the 6th seed? Yes.
Has it happened before? Yes, once.
Is it highly unlikely? Yes.
Does it make some people sound bitter when they need to reach back into time to discuss highly unlikely-hypothetical scenarios in order to make a move that they did not like seem exponentially worse?
Yes.

Its stupid to try to equate the Steph trade with passing up on Dwight Howard.

Dwight Howard could have been drafted by New York and got high on cocaine and died. Thats a possibility as well, and that has happened as well. So lets rejoice that we didn't tank and get the #1 pick who died from a cocaine overdose.

[Edited by - killa4luv on 01-24-2006 1:13 PM]

Nobody is trying to say that the Marbury trade equates to us passing up on Dwight Howard. I'm saying it equates to us giving up a potentially high lottery pick in 2004 (Which could have possibly gotten us Howard or Okafor or at the very least a good young player), another unprotected #1 in a few years, large expiring contracts and the financial flexibility that comes with not adding close to $200MM in salaries.
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
joec32033
Posts: 30631
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 2/3/2004
Member: #583
USA
1/24/2006  1:25 PM
Posted by djsunyc:

i think a more realistic argument is who would you rather have now, where we are as a team, in rebuild mode, andre iguodla or steph?


W/o Steph and Penny, salaries are at around 90 mil. For this season. Still over the cap, an w/o a bonafide best player. With Lampje still here Butler or Woods probably isn't. We probably also don't have Frye and would've picked someone different in his spot (Bynum, Gerald Green, Webster?)
~You can't run from who you are.~
gunsnewing
Posts: 55076
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 2/24/2002
Member: #215
USA
1/24/2006  1:43 PM
What we're saying is if Isiah didn't try to win right away he wouldn't have made short-sighted moves like baker, taylor, penny, JJ. Therefore our cap would not be 90mil right now. instead we'd have a ton of quality young players and the cap room and flexibility to add a top free agent. Instead we're stuck with a team with over $120mm payroll consisting of players who are stupid and don't play any defense and there's nothing we can do about it and haven't had a winning season in over 5yrs.


[Edited by - gunsnewing on 01-24-2006 2:16 PM]
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
1/24/2006  2:14 PM
Posted by gunsnewing:

What we're saying is if Isiah didn't try to win right away he wouldn't have made short-sighted moves like baker, taylor, penny, JJ. Therefore our cap would not be 90mil right now. instead we're have a ton of quality young players and the cap room and flexibility to add a top free agent. Instead we're stuck with a team with over $120mm payroll consisting of players who are stupid and don't play any defense and there's nothing we can do about it and haven't had a winning season in over 5yrs.
exactly. Lots of teams add young players. If you dont think ISiah has built a primarily veteran core you havent been watching.
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
1/24/2006  2:30 PM
With the pick that we most reasonably would have had without the Steph trade, we ALREADY know that those other slots did not win the #1 or #2 pick.
That's the entire point. I guess you're an idiot just like me for realizing this.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
1/24/2006  2:31 PM
Posted by djsunyc:

i think a more realistic argument is who would you rather have now, where we are as a team, in rebuild mode, andre iguodla or steph?
I'd still say Steph because he's the FAR better player and IMO has at least 5 more years left in him. If Steph were 34, I'd pick Igoudala, though.

islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
1/24/2006  2:51 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
With the pick that we most reasonably would have had without the Steph trade, we ALREADY know that those other slots did not win the #1 or #2 pick.
That's the entire point. I guess you're an idiot just like me for realizing this.

No, you're an idiot because you think that everything would have played out exactly the same regardless of whether of not Marbury was traded to the Knicks.
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
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
1/24/2006  3:04 PM
What would have played out differently in the draft lottery? Which ping pong balls would have come out differently with Knicks logos and why?

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 01-24-2006 3:05 PM]
Page 5 of 6 « First‹ Previous 3  4  5  6 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
crazy question but would you trade curry AND frye for dwight howard?
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