AnubisADL wrote:

TMS wrote:let's offer the Thunder Gallo & Wilson for Kevin Durant... i'm sure they'd jump all over that after considering their combined production.

Defintely. Fields is untouchable in a Durant trade though. Westbrook is the heart of that team. Durant is just a volume scorer. OKC wins without Durant playing.

we can get Westbrook if we throw in Fields & Toney Douglas... they're combining for 20 / 10 / 4 this year

TMS wrote:

Uptown wrote:

loweyecue wrote:Briggy's logic isn't flawed, in fact I am with it. I do want to see the Melo situation play out first. Then if we strike out we should do exactly what he suggested. -- Meaning getting a big and a backup PG like he talks about.

Here is the logic I'm speaking of. In about 6-7 other threads Birggs has continued to say (I'm paraphrasing here) "Gallo and Chanlder combined can equal the same offensive output as Melo so we dont need him." He combined Gallo and Chandlers scoring output and rebounding numbers from last night and said they pretty much can give you what Melo will give. THAT IS THE LOGIC THAT IS FAULTY. You can't throw two average to barely above average NBA players stats together and say they can equal the impact of a superstar player. It doesn't work that way. As I mentioned in the first post, if thats the case we should have kept Harrington and Lee because their combined stats trumm Stoudemires stats. But obviously, we see Stoudemires impact on the floor goes beyond numbers and he is the main reason why we are 16-10 at this point as opposed to being 7-19 or whatever our record was last year at the same time when Lee and Harrington combined were putting up the same numbers as Amare.

Chanlder and Gallo were major parts of a Knicks teams that languished at the bottom of the east for the last 3 years. Chanlder has improved some this year, but dont get it twisted, Amare is the reason why we are no longer languishing in the bottom of the east (and Felton to). So if adding a superstar like Amare can change the direction of this franchise so much, how could anyone believe that adding a second star to this roster can hurt? Amare got us into the playoff picture and I think Melo's presence can gett us into the championship picture.

i agree Uptown, it's ridiculous logic to combine production from 2 inferior players & say trading them for a proven star would be a downgrade... your D Lee & Harrington/Amare example is dead on... a star player's impact on a roster goes way beyond the stats & numbers... it relieves pressure from every other guy on your roster & makes their job a lot easier... having a reliable every game scorer like Melo takes a ton of pressure off of Amare & Felton, & puts a ton more pressure on the opponent to have to guard them... Melo can carry a team on any given night offensively... you get the stars first, then worry about assembling the role players later... all the naysayers against a Melo trade seem to think anyone in support of it wants to gut the entire roster to get him here, which just isn't true... if u can get Melo for a reasonable package like Wilson, Gallo or Fields & AR, filler, pick(s), then i think u have to go for it... if DEN wants much more than that, then you move on & consider other options... it's not that complicated a discussion to me... i get the feeling the Knicks are going to make a move for Melo regardless of what anyone says... we'll see how things play out.

Bingo! If we pull off a trade for Melo, we can still go out and get the defensive big and back-up point. We have an owner who has proven he is willing to spend and exceed the cap as long as we are winning and I'm sure if we land Melo, Walsh isn't going back to sleep.

And I also mentioned earlier, we dont have to gut the team for Melo. Melo and the Knicks have the leverage here.

Uptown wrote:Briggs, you continue to combine the numbers of Gallo and Chandler and claim that Melo cant equal the two of them. By this same idiotic logic, if you combine Harrington and Lee's numbers from last year that avaraged 38 pts and 17 rbs. Those averages trump Stoudemire's numbers so accoding to your logic, we should have kept David and Al over Amare.

Cpome on Briggs, your better than that. Obviuosly Amares impact is deeper than that numbers as wold Melos impact be on this club. I agree, I dont wnat to give up the farm, but yes, if want to be one of the top 2-3 teams in the east and a championship contender, Melo is very necessary.

Papabear Says

I agree! But let's not give everything away. i would rather just wait.

knickstorrents wrote:

Uptown wrote:If you give Melo all 17 Chandlers shots, does he only score 18? Probably not. Would Melo only get 0 attempts from the freethrow line? Probably not. Pierce had 5 fouls last night. If he was gaurding Melo does he foul out? Its a good chance. And if he doesn't foul out his mins would have been reduced....

Melo shoots at a lower percentage than Chandler, so he probably scores less than Chandler, given the same number of shots. The ONLY thing he's good for is ISO plays during the last 5 minutes of the game.

Melo shoots a lower % due to the fact that defenses hunker down on trying to guard him & he has to face double teams... Wilson is the beneficiary of open looks because of Amare's presence in the paint... add Melo to this team & neither 1 of those guys can be doubled w/o making the other team pay bigtime for doing so.

Anji wrote:Come on man, when has 2 or 3 guys doing the same as 1 player been better in any sport???

Melo aka A super on the wing is worth 3 role players in the bush- FTW, before Stat starts to cool off...............

In basketball, esp. during playoffs you make and develop schemes specific for that playoff series. If Carmelo replaces 3 of our good players, hey all I have to do is double/triple Carmelo and I'm set. And Carmelo doesn't defend as well as the 3 players he replaced so the other team is net positive overall.

We don't have the depth where trading for a Carmelo makes sense... teams like Portland could do it but not us. No way we maintain our current level of play after doing that trade.

umynot wrote:

TMS wrote:

knickstorrents wrote:

Uptown wrote:If you give Melo all 17 Chandlers shots, does he only score 18? Probably not. Would Melo only get 0 attempts from the freethrow line? Probably not. Pierce had 5 fouls last night. If he was gaurding Melo does he foul out? Its a good chance. And if he doesn't foul out his mins would have been reduced....

Melo shoots at a lower percentage than Chandler, so he probably scores less than Chandler, given the same number of shots. The ONLY thing he's good for is ISO plays during the last 5 minutes of the game.

Melo shoots a lower % due to the fact that defenses hunker down on trying to guard him & he has to face double teams... Wilson is the beneficiary of open looks because of Amare's presence in the paint... add Melo to this team & neither 1 of those guys can be doubled w/o making the other team pay bigtime for doing so.

This is logical but again only one ball........

Pippen knew his role..... Gasol his
Worthy knew his...... Kareem knew his...

Will Melo need 25 shots? If so does he deserve them more then Amare?

Or is it gonna be 2 on 5 ?.......

Gallo defers to Amare...... And he does it well

Gallo also opens the court better then Melo thats just a fact.
I say the risk is to high for the reward!!

i happen to think Melo & Amare would have no problems sharing shot opportunities... MDA is good at getting guys scoring opps in this system... that's something i never have to worry about w/him... if anyone's shot opps would go down, it would probably be Ray Felton, but then his assists totals probably go up in the process... i have no problem w/that kind of trade off.

Uptown wrote:

loweyecue wrote:Briggy's logic isn't flawed, in fact I am with it. I do want to see the Melo situation play out first. Then if we strike out we should do exactly what he suggested. -- Meaning getting a big and a backup PG like he talks about.

Here is the logic I'm speaking of. In about 6-7 other threads Birggs has continued to say (I'm paraphrasing here) "Gallo and Chandler combined can equal the same offensive output as Melo so we dont need him." He combined Gallo and Chandlers scoring output and rebounding numbers from last night and said they pretty much can give you what Melo will give. THAT IS THE LOGIC THAT IS FAULTY. You can't throw two average to barely above average NBA players stats together and say they can equal the impact of a superstar player. It doesn't work that way. As I mentioned in the first post, if thats the case we should have kept Harrington and Lee because their combined stats trump Stoudemires stats. But obviously, we see Stoudemires impact on the floor goes beyond numbers and he is the main reason why we are 16-10 at this point as opposed to being 7-19 or whatever our record was last year at the same time when Lee and Harrington combined were putting up the same numbers as Amare.

Chandler and Gallo were major parts of a Knicks team that languished at the bottom of the east for the last 3 years. Chandler has improved some this year, but dont get it twisted, Amare is the reason why we are no longer languishing in the bottom of the east (and Felton to). So if adding a superstar like Amare can change the direction of this franchise so much, how could anyone believe that adding a second star to this roster can hurt? Amare got us into the playoff picture and I think Melo's presence can get us into the championship picture.

I understand what you are saying and I think what Briggs said does make sense. Gallo and Chandler also impact the game defensively and probably add more "value" to the "team" than Melo alone. Bringing up Harrington and Lee is useless, they gave up twice as much as they scored. Now, I am still in favor of getting Melo, but I do see that would disrupt our chemistry. And that itself may be a bigger price to pay than any stats you can throw out for Gallo/Chandler. On the flip side of that, Melo would add value by ensuring less wear and tear on the other two so you have to balance that in as well.