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

Where in the history of the NBA has a 20 year old 20-10 C traded with a HIGH lottery pick for
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 6 of 17 « First‹ Previous 4  5  6  7  8 Next ›Last »
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
6/7/2008  3:30 PM
i understand having a higher pick is preferable obviously, but i'm weighing the drawbacks of moving down w/the benefits of what this trade brings, & to me at least it's enough to warrant making the deal... i trust Walsh to be able to find some good talent at the #16 in a draft where most people agree is 1-3 players deep in terms of elite prospects.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
AUTOADVERT
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
6/7/2008  3:32 PM
Posted by eViL:
Posted by TMS:
Posted by eViL:
Posted by TMS:

dude, i'm not getting on you for not liking this trade... i respect ur views, u know that... i just don't see the logic in the analogy, that's all... no biggie.

Bro, we know how to disagree peacefully. We set a good example for the board

it's cuz i hate guarding you on the court... i don't wanna get you pissed at me.

If we get another chance to play, we'll make a side deal -- I won't guard you, you don't guard me. We'll play pretend defense and everyone will look like a superstar. HAHA!!

the only way for me to look halfway decent is by playing D... just keep bitty off me & i promise i won't guard you if we play.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
TrueBlue
Posts: 29144
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 9/20/2006
Member: #1172
6/7/2008  3:39 PM
Posted by tkf:
Posted by TMS:
Posted by eViL:
Posted by TMS:
Posted by eViL:

That's not the way it works. You can't just compare 6 to 16. When we give up 6 for 16, we're not only passing on 6, we're also passing on 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. You know this. I expect your revised list tomorrow morning. Thanks for volunteering.

to be fair bro, i don't think it works that way... we have 1 pick & 1 pick only... moving down spots doesn't make us lose out on every talent that's taken after #6, we wouldn't have had them anyway... i know what you're trying to say that we lose out on the possibility of drafting the guys taken #7-15 over the years but that's not the correct way of looking at it IMO.

How is that not the correct way to look at it? I'm not saying we are going to draft all of the guys from 7-15. I know we have only one pick. However, for the purpose of comparing what the 6 pick has yielded over the years to what the 16 pick has yielded over the years, you have to compare what is available at each pick, not only who was taken. That's the only way to compare it.

if u want to look at it that way you could also bring up every player that was taken after #16... it's an endless argument that leads nowhere.


not really, and here is why..... True there have been some nice players that have fell late in the draft. Parker, ginobili, redd, our own david lee, rashard lewis, etc, but those players are not plentiful in the draft and certainly a quality player ike ginobili and boozer are exceptions to the rule. But the key is you will get more great players between 1-15 than you will at 16-30.. That is a fact, and I am sure you will get better player from 1-10 than you will from 11-20, I am sure History will support that! So why give up that chance? The knicks really need this pick and with pick 6, you only have 5 teams selecting in front of you, I like our chances of landing someone good, especiallywith walsh and D'antoni in the draft room. Take for example 2002, we had the 7th pick in the draft and traded it along with camby for mcdeyse and the rights to frank williams... Major mistake as we can now see... Not only did we give camby away way too early, but we lost out on a chance to draft Amare at 9 and caron butler at 10.. true Tayshaun prince was sitting there and went at 24, but again, trading down we had no shot at guys like amare and caron.. Imagine we had a GM with a brain, and some guts and had scouted amare properly and decided to pair him with camby.... wow....

What I am saying is by moving down 10 spots, you lose the opportunity at so many potentially good players, true you have to make the right choice, but this is why we have walsh, why take that away from him, in his first draft.... No matter how good one drafts, if the choices are limited, so are the chances of getting a very good talent...

And by your example I could use Danny Ainge of giving up the #7 pick in 2006(for pick #21(Rondo) a draft with clearly less depth) and #5 pick in 2007, Wally(2yrs left on his contract), Delonte West(rookie deal) to dump Raef Lafrentz and trade for Ray Allen respectively, which eventually landed them Garnett. None of their moves assured them of landing K.G. but make no mistake about it their moves gave them the flexibility to align themselves to land K.G. Also if they don't do the #5 for Allen deal they get no K.G. Boston could have had Brandon Roy or Rudy Gay and possibly Jeff Green( if they would have duplicated a bad season with Roy or Gay in the fold for 2006). Boston is playing in the Finals Amare and Caron Butler are sitting at home watching them. People in favor of the trade TKF mentioned that it should facilitate other moves down the road to accomplish a means but once gain if you look at this in vacuum well ok that's your prerogative.




[Edited by - TrueBlue on 06-07-2008 2:44 PM]
LMFAO @ the Bio [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephon_Marbury[/url]
Uptown
Posts: 31378
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 4/1/2008
Member: #1883
6/7/2008  4:06 PM
Posted by TrueBlue:
Posted by tkf:
Posted by TMS:
Posted by eViL:
Posted by TMS:
Posted by eViL:

That's not the way it works. You can't just compare 6 to 16. When we give up 6 for 16, we're not only passing on 6, we're also passing on 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. You know this. I expect your revised list tomorrow morning. Thanks for volunteering.

to be fair bro, i don't think it works that way... we have 1 pick & 1 pick only... moving down spots doesn't make us lose out on every talent that's taken after #6, we wouldn't have had them anyway... i know what you're trying to say that we lose out on the possibility of drafting the guys taken #7-15 over the years but that's not the correct way of looking at it IMO.

How is that not the correct way to look at it? I'm not saying we are going to draft all of the guys from 7-15. I know we have only one pick. However, for the purpose of comparing what the 6 pick has yielded over the years to what the 16 pick has yielded over the years, you have to compare what is available at each pick, not only who was taken. That's the only way to compare it.

if u want to look at it that way you could also bring up every player that was taken after #16... it's an endless argument that leads nowhere.


not really, and here is why..... True there have been some nice players that have fell late in the draft. Parker, ginobili, redd, our own david lee, rashard lewis, etc, but those players are not plentiful in the draft and certainly a quality player ike ginobili and boozer are exceptions to the rule. But the key is you will get more great players between 1-15 than you will at 16-30.. That is a fact, and I am sure you will get better player from 1-10 than you will from 11-20, I am sure History will support that! So why give up that chance? The knicks really need this pick and with pick 6, you only have 5 teams selecting in front of you, I like our chances of landing someone good, especiallywith walsh and D'antoni in the draft room. Take for example 2002, we had the 7th pick in the draft and traded it along with camby for mcdeyse and the rights to frank williams... Major mistake as we can now see... Not only did we give camby away way too early, but we lost out on a chance to draft Amare at 9 and caron butler at 10.. true Tayshaun prince was sitting there and went at 24, but again, trading down we had no shot at guys like amare and caron.. Imagine we had a GM with a brain, and some guts and had scouted amare properly and decided to pair him with camby.... wow....

What I am saying is by moving down 10 spots, you lose the opportunity at so many potentially good players, true you have to make the right choice, but this is why we have walsh, why take that away from him, in his first draft.... No matter how good one drafts, if the choices are limited, so are the chances of getting a very good talent...

And by your example I could use Danny Ainge of giving up the #7 pick in 2006(for pick #21(Rondo) a draft with clearly less depth) and #5 pick in 2007, Wally(2yrs left on his contract), Delonte West(rookie deal) to dump Raef Lafrentz and trade for Ray Allen respectively, which eventually landed them Garnett. None of their moves assured them of landing K.G. but make no mistake about it their moves gave them the flexibility to align themselves to land K.G. Also if they don't do the #5 for Allen deal they get no K.G. Boston could have had Brandon Roy or Rudy Gay and possibly Jeff Green( if they would have duplicated a bad season with Roy or Gay in the fold for 2006). Boston is playing in the Finals Amare and Caron Butler are sitting at home watching them. People in favor of the trade TKF mentioned that it should facilitate other moves down the road to accomplish a means but once gain if you look at this in vacuum well ok that's your prerogative.




[Edited by - TrueBlue on 06-07-2008 2:44 PM]

To say Boston traded the 5th pick along with Lafrentz as a salary dump is totally misleading. Boston essentially traded the lotto pick for Ray Allen. Thats usually how things are done. If your trading a lotto pick, usually a star player will come in return.

And No, I'm not caught up in winning this deal in terms of getting back the most talent, I just feel we can complete this deal without giving up a lotto pick.
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
6/7/2008  4:10 PM
Posted by TrueBlue:
Posted by tkf:
Posted by TMS:
Posted by eViL:
Posted by TMS:
Posted by eViL:

That's not the way it works. You can't just compare 6 to 16. When we give up 6 for 16, we're not only passing on 6, we're also passing on 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. You know this. I expect your revised list tomorrow morning. Thanks for volunteering.

to be fair bro, i don't think it works that way... we have 1 pick & 1 pick only... moving down spots doesn't make us lose out on every talent that's taken after #6, we wouldn't have had them anyway... i know what you're trying to say that we lose out on the possibility of drafting the guys taken #7-15 over the years but that's not the correct way of looking at it IMO.

How is that not the correct way to look at it? I'm not saying we are going to draft all of the guys from 7-15. I know we have only one pick. However, for the purpose of comparing what the 6 pick has yielded over the years to what the 16 pick has yielded over the years, you have to compare what is available at each pick, not only who was taken. That's the only way to compare it.

if u want to look at it that way you could also bring up every player that was taken after #16... it's an endless argument that leads nowhere.


not really, and here is why..... True there have been some nice players that have fell late in the draft. Parker, ginobili, redd, our own david lee, rashard lewis, etc, but those players are not plentiful in the draft and certainly a quality player ike ginobili and boozer are exceptions to the rule. But the key is you will get more great players between 1-15 than you will at 16-30.. That is a fact, and I am sure you will get better player from 1-10 than you will from 11-20, I am sure History will support that! So why give up that chance? The knicks really need this pick and with pick 6, you only have 5 teams selecting in front of you, I like our chances of landing someone good, especiallywith walsh and D'antoni in the draft room. Take for example 2002, we had the 7th pick in the draft and traded it along with camby for mcdeyse and the rights to frank williams... Major mistake as we can now see... Not only did we give camby away way too early, but we lost out on a chance to draft Amare at 9 and caron butler at 10.. true Tayshaun prince was sitting there and went at 24, but again, trading down we had no shot at guys like amare and caron.. Imagine we had a GM with a brain, and some guts and had scouted amare properly and decided to pair him with camby.... wow....

What I am saying is by moving down 10 spots, you lose the opportunity at so many potentially good players, true you have to make the right choice, but this is why we have walsh, why take that away from him, in his first draft.... No matter how good one drafts, if the choices are limited, so are the chances of getting a very good talent...

And by your example I could use Danny Ainge of giving up the #7 pick in 2006(for pick #21(Rondo) a draft with clearly less depth) and #5 pick in 2007, Wally(2yrs left on his contract), Delonte West(rookie deal) to dump Raef Lafrentz and trade for Ray Allen respectively, which eventually landed them Garnett. None of their moves assured them of landing K.G. but make no mistake about it their moves gave them the flexibility to align themselves to land K.G. Also if they don't do the #5 for Allen deal they get no K.G. Boston could have had Brandon Roy or Rudy Gay and possibly Jeff Green( if they would have duplicated a bad season with Roy or Gay in the fold for 2006). Boston is playing in the Finals Amare and Caron Butler are sitting at home watching them. People in favor of the trade TKF mentioned that it should facilitate other moves down the road to accomplish a means but once gain if you look at this in vacuum well ok that's your prerogative.




[Edited by - TrueBlue on 06-07-2008 2:44 PM]

True: what you are missing is Ainge's moves were all made for immediate results, the pick had no use to boston last year because they were making moves to win now, the KG trade and the allen trade were win now moves. they were not giving up picks, high picks and talent to get cap space 2 years from now in hopes to compete with 5 other teams to get Garnett! This is different man..


Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
TrueBlue
Posts: 29144
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 9/20/2006
Member: #1172
6/7/2008  4:14 PM
Posted by Uptown:
Posted by TrueBlue:
Posted by tkf:
Posted by TMS:
Posted by eViL:
Posted by TMS:
Posted by eViL:

That's not the way it works. You can't just compare 6 to 16. When we give up 6 for 16, we're not only passing on 6, we're also passing on 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. You know this. I expect your revised list tomorrow morning. Thanks for volunteering.

to be fair bro, i don't think it works that way... we have 1 pick & 1 pick only... moving down spots doesn't make us lose out on every talent that's taken after #6, we wouldn't have had them anyway... i know what you're trying to say that we lose out on the possibility of drafting the guys taken #7-15 over the years but that's not the correct way of looking at it IMO.

How is that not the correct way to look at it? I'm not saying we are going to draft all of the guys from 7-15. I know we have only one pick. However, for the purpose of comparing what the 6 pick has yielded over the years to what the 16 pick has yielded over the years, you have to compare what is available at each pick, not only who was taken. That's the only way to compare it.

if u want to look at it that way you could also bring up every player that was taken after #16... it's an endless argument that leads nowhere.


not really, and here is why..... True there have been some nice players that have fell late in the draft. Parker, ginobili, redd, our own david lee, rashard lewis, etc, but those players are not plentiful in the draft and certainly a quality player ike ginobili and boozer are exceptions to the rule. But the key is you will get more great players between 1-15 than you will at 16-30.. That is a fact, and I am sure you will get better player from 1-10 than you will from 11-20, I am sure History will support that! So why give up that chance? The knicks really need this pick and with pick 6, you only have 5 teams selecting in front of you, I like our chances of landing someone good, especiallywith walsh and D'antoni in the draft room. Take for example 2002, we had the 7th pick in the draft and traded it along with camby for mcdeyse and the rights to frank williams... Major mistake as we can now see... Not only did we give camby away way too early, but we lost out on a chance to draft Amare at 9 and caron butler at 10.. true Tayshaun prince was sitting there and went at 24, but again, trading down we had no shot at guys like amare and caron.. Imagine we had a GM with a brain, and some guts and had scouted amare properly and decided to pair him with camby.... wow....

What I am saying is by moving down 10 spots, you lose the opportunity at so many potentially good players, true you have to make the right choice, but this is why we have walsh, why take that away from him, in his first draft.... No matter how good one drafts, if the choices are limited, so are the chances of getting a very good talent...

And by your example I could use Danny Ainge of giving up the #7 pick in 2006(for pick #21(Rondo) a draft with clearly less depth) and #5 pick in 2007, Wally(2yrs left on his contract), Delonte West(rookie deal) to dump Raef Lafrentz and trade for Ray Allen respectively, which eventually landed them Garnett. None of their moves assured them of landing K.G. but make no mistake about it their moves gave them the flexibility to align themselves to land K.G. Also if they don't do the #5 for Allen deal they get no K.G. Boston could have had Brandon Roy or Rudy Gay and possibly Jeff Green( if they would have duplicated a bad season with Roy or Gay in the fold for 2006). Boston is playing in the Finals Amare and Caron Butler are sitting at home watching them. People in favor of the trade TKF mentioned that it should facilitate other moves down the road to accomplish a means but once gain if you look at this in vacuum well ok that's your prerogative.




[Edited by - TrueBlue on 06-07-2008 2:44 PM]

To say Boston traded the 5th pick along with Lafrentz as a salary dump is totally misleading. Boston essentially traded the lotto pick for Ray Allen. Thats usually how things are done. If your trading a lotto pick, usually a star player will come in return.

And No, I'm not caught up in winning this deal in terms of getting back the most talent, I just feel we can complete this deal without giving up a lotto pick.

Boston traded Raef Lafrentz(3yrs left on deal) and the 7th pick(Roy or Gay) 2006 for Theo Ratliff(2yrs left on deal) and 21rst pick(Rondo) 2006. Then Ainge traded the 5th pick(Green) 2007 Wally(2yrs left on deal) and West(rookie deal) for Ray Allen(3yrs left on deal) and 35th pick(Big Baby) 2007. Sorry I left out the full details but that's the first move/trade Danny made preceding the one he did with the Sonics for Ray Allen. Like I said one move followed the other, just as the Zach Sixer trade should be followed up with others.
LMFAO @ the Bio [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephon_Marbury[/url]
TrueBlue
Posts: 29144
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 9/20/2006
Member: #1172
6/7/2008  4:17 PM
Posted by tkf:
Posted by TrueBlue:
Posted by tkf:
Posted by TMS:
Posted by eViL:
Posted by TMS:
Posted by eViL:

That's not the way it works. You can't just compare 6 to 16. When we give up 6 for 16, we're not only passing on 6, we're also passing on 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. You know this. I expect your revised list tomorrow morning. Thanks for volunteering.

to be fair bro, i don't think it works that way... we have 1 pick & 1 pick only... moving down spots doesn't make us lose out on every talent that's taken after #6, we wouldn't have had them anyway... i know what you're trying to say that we lose out on the possibility of drafting the guys taken #7-15 over the years but that's not the correct way of looking at it IMO.

How is that not the correct way to look at it? I'm not saying we are going to draft all of the guys from 7-15. I know we have only one pick. However, for the purpose of comparing what the 6 pick has yielded over the years to what the 16 pick has yielded over the years, you have to compare what is available at each pick, not only who was taken. That's the only way to compare it.

if u want to look at it that way you could also bring up every player that was taken after #16... it's an endless argument that leads nowhere.


not really, and here is why..... True there have been some nice players that have fell late in the draft. Parker, ginobili, redd, our own david lee, rashard lewis, etc, but those players are not plentiful in the draft and certainly a quality player ike ginobili and boozer are exceptions to the rule. But the key is you will get more great players between 1-15 than you will at 16-30.. That is a fact, and I am sure you will get better player from 1-10 than you will from 11-20, I am sure History will support that! So why give up that chance? The knicks really need this pick and with pick 6, you only have 5 teams selecting in front of you, I like our chances of landing someone good, especiallywith walsh and D'antoni in the draft room. Take for example 2002, we had the 7th pick in the draft and traded it along with camby for mcdeyse and the rights to frank williams... Major mistake as we can now see... Not only did we give camby away way too early, but we lost out on a chance to draft Amare at 9 and caron butler at 10.. true Tayshaun prince was sitting there and went at 24, but again, trading down we had no shot at guys like amare and caron.. Imagine we had a GM with a brain, and some guts and had scouted amare properly and decided to pair him with camby.... wow....

What I am saying is by moving down 10 spots, you lose the opportunity at so many potentially good players, true you have to make the right choice, but this is why we have walsh, why take that away from him, in his first draft.... No matter how good one drafts, if the choices are limited, so are the chances of getting a very good talent...

And by your example I could use Danny Ainge of giving up the #7 pick in 2006(for pick #21(Rondo) a draft with clearly less depth) and #5 pick in 2007, Wally(2yrs left on his contract), Delonte West(rookie deal) to dump Raef Lafrentz and trade for Ray Allen respectively, which eventually landed them Garnett. None of their moves assured them of landing K.G. but make no mistake about it their moves gave them the flexibility to align themselves to land K.G. Also if they don't do the #5 for Allen deal they get no K.G. Boston could have had Brandon Roy or Rudy Gay and possibly Jeff Green( if they would have duplicated a bad season with Roy or Gay in the fold for 2006). Boston is playing in the Finals Amare and Caron Butler are sitting at home watching them. People in favor of the trade TKF mentioned that it should facilitate other moves down the road to accomplish a means but once gain if you look at this in vacuum well ok that's your prerogative.




[Edited by - TrueBlue on 06-07-2008 2:44 PM]

True: what you are missing is Ainge's moves were all made for immediate results, the pick had no use to boston last year because they were making moves to win now, the KG trade and the allen trade were win now moves. they were not giving up picks, high picks and talent to get cap space 2 years from now in hopes to compete with 5 other teams to get Garnett! This is different man..




TKF the trade in 2006 trade was not a win now move Geez Man come on. 2006 pick 7 Roy and Raef for Theo and pick 21 Rondo. Please explain how this was a win now trade. This trade was a plan to strike down the road which he did the following yr.
LMFAO @ the Bio [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephon_Marbury[/url]
newyorknewyork
Posts: 30259
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #541
6/7/2008  5:45 PM
Posted by TMS:
Posted by newyorknewyork:

I don't care about the #6 pick(unless Mayo is available) as much as I care about use getting fleeced value wise in this deal. Philly needs to add something to this proposed deal like a draft pick for the 2010 offseason so we could keep the better one and offer the worse one to Utah

i don't think it's unreasonable to try & get something else out of the deal, but u also don't wanna pull too much of the Isiah wheeling & dealing hocus pocus on other GM's & turn them off to the deal altogether either if u ask me... this deal offers us a great chance to gain the cap flexibility that Walsh has made his #1 goal since he got here... i don't see why we should be so quick to discount its merits.

Forget that im telling them they need to add more to the deal. Its not like im trying to rape them, im just trying to not get fleeced. I think they still are coming away with a steal, Randolph is overpaid like many other players but he produces good numbers its not like he is a overpaid guy that offers minimal ala Dampier. Then add in the value that the #6 lottery pick hold and we are getting fleeced in this deal. Its as simple as that really, Id tell them they are fleecing me with that deal and to at least give us some value back I want there 2010 pick.
https://vote.nba.com/en Vote for your Knicks.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
6/7/2008  6:40 PM
Posted by newyorknewyork:
Posted by TMS:
Posted by newyorknewyork:

I don't care about the #6 pick(unless Mayo is available) as much as I care about use getting fleeced value wise in this deal. Philly needs to add something to this proposed deal like a draft pick for the 2010 offseason so we could keep the better one and offer the worse one to Utah

i don't think it's unreasonable to try & get something else out of the deal, but u also don't wanna pull too much of the Isiah wheeling & dealing hocus pocus on other GM's & turn them off to the deal altogether either if u ask me... this deal offers us a great chance to gain the cap flexibility that Walsh has made his #1 goal since he got here... i don't see why we should be so quick to discount its merits.

Forget that im telling them they need to add more to the deal. Its not like im trying to rape them, im just trying to not get fleeced. I think they still are coming away with a steal, Randolph is overpaid like many other players but he produces good numbers its not like he is a overpaid guy that offers minimal ala Dampier. Then add in the value that the #6 lottery pick hold and we are getting fleeced in this deal. Its as simple as that really, Id tell them they are fleecing me with that deal and to at least give us some value back I want there 2010 pick.
Two questions: What in your opinion are the reasons why we're trying so hard to get rid of Zach? And why would all of those reasons not make it extremely difficult for Philly to be willing to take Zach?
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
6/7/2008  7:08 PM
the reason is Mo Cheeks... no other team in the NBA is crazy enough (or even capable for that matter) to take on Zach's contract right now w/o also giving back a heinous contract in the process unless we were gonna throw them our pick outright for nothing.

there are not going to be any miracle trades coming our way to unload Zach until after the fact... we need to unload him at least a year BEFORE his contract becomes an expiring, not the year of, if we want to reap the targetted benefits in terms of the cap that Walsh is looking for... this is what you call forward thinking... if we wait til he becomes an expiring we'll have already missed any chance of targetting any bigname FA's the previous winter.

all this jibber jabber about Zach being a success in Mike D's system is silly talk... when is this franchise ever going to learn to cut bait on a failed experiment instead of trying desperately by any means necessary to milk something positive out of it? the next step after passing on a deal like this is people trying to think about what players we can bring in who would be a nice fit around Zach over the idea of getting rid of him, pretty much like we've been doing all year long w/nothing happening in terms of roster moves because nobody out there wanted any part of him up to now... pretty much exactly how this franchise mistakenly tried to milk whatever positive results out of that ill-fated Marbury trade by bringing in players like Tiny Tim, Jalen Rose, Nazr Mohammed, etc.

like i told u guys a long time ago, the more things change, the more they stay the same... it's time to break away from the mold & try something new.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
newyorknewyork
Posts: 30259
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #541
6/7/2008  9:22 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by newyorknewyork:
Posted by TMS:
Posted by newyorknewyork:

I don't care about the #6 pick(unless Mayo is available) as much as I care about use getting fleeced value wise in this deal. Philly needs to add something to this proposed deal like a draft pick for the 2010 offseason so we could keep the better one and offer the worse one to Utah

i don't think it's unreasonable to try & get something else out of the deal, but u also don't wanna pull too much of the Isiah wheeling & dealing hocus pocus on other GM's & turn them off to the deal altogether either if u ask me... this deal offers us a great chance to gain the cap flexibility that Walsh has made his #1 goal since he got here... i don't see why we should be so quick to discount its merits.

Forget that im telling them they need to add more to the deal. Its not like im trying to rape them, im just trying to not get fleeced. I think they still are coming away with a steal, Randolph is overpaid like many other players but he produces good numbers its not like he is a overpaid guy that offers minimal ala Dampier. Then add in the value that the #6 lottery pick hold and we are getting fleeced in this deal. Its as simple as that really, Id tell them they are fleecing me with that deal and to at least give us some value back I want there 2010 pick.
Two questions: What in your opinion are the reasons why we're trying so hard to get rid of Zach? And why would all of those reasons not make it extremely difficult for Philly to be willing to take Zach?

What in your opinion are the reasons why we're trying so hard to get rid of Zach?

#1 because we want to get cap flexability
#2 becauce Curry & Randolph don't fit together
#3 because Randolph isn't the ideal forward for D'Antoni's style
#4 he isn't a strong team player

And why would all of those reasons not make it extremely difficult for Philly to be willing to take Zach?

Randolph will fit nicely along side of Dalembert, Andre Miller will be the highest level pass first PG he has ever played with, Philly desperatly needs a go to option in the post. Randolph hogging the ball a some won't be as big an issue because Philly needs a scorer like him. By unloading Evens deal in the trade Philly would end up paying 10.6mil a season on average for 3 seasons getting 20-10. Randolph is a very nice fit for them. All that plus they want the #6 lottery pick.

Philly just pushed Detroit in the playoffs and are hungry to advance further. They probably feel Randolph can push them to the next level. But they also want to move up in the draft I guessing for Eric Gordan or Westbrook and to try and become a true contender. I don't see them with many options to land any player as talented as Randolph without moving someone from there core (making it a lateral move and not an advancing move)or adding a bad contract & giving up there draft pick. They don't have a lot of pieces to play with. Then there is the fact that they have to resign Andre Igoudala who has a qualifying offer. So there options to improve the way they want to aren't very strong. Randolph is probably there best option for them to improve. The team willing to be the most patient is the team who will be in position of strength.

Randolph for Evens in a straight up in a talent for cap flexability move is what I would offer. If they want the #6 pick as well then they are going to have to pay for that with another draft pick. If that is to steep a price then so be it. I would have no problem keeping my #6 lottery pick or going in another direction with a different team possibly Minny and trying to land the #3 pick. Have D'Antoni put Randolph in the best position to succeed, Then check his value again when his contract is in a position to let us deal from strength rather then weakness.
https://vote.nba.com/en Vote for your Knicks.
newyorknewyork
Posts: 30259
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #541
6/7/2008  9:38 PM
Posted by TMS:

the reason is Mo Cheeks... no other team in the NBA is crazy enough (or even capable for that matter) to take on Zach's contract right now w/o also giving back a heinous contract in the process unless we were gonna throw them our pick outright for nothing.

there are not going to be any miracle trades coming our way to unload Zach until after the fact... we need to unload him at least a year BEFORE his contract becomes an expiring, not the year of, if we want to reap the targetted benefits in terms of the cap that Walsh is looking for... this is what you call forward thinking... if we wait til he becomes an expiring we'll have already missed any chance of targetting any bigname FA's the previous winter.

all this jibber jabber about Zach being a success in Mike D's system is silly talk... when is this franchise ever going to learn to cut bait on a failed experiment instead of trying desperately by any means necessary to milk something positive out of it? the next step after passing on a deal like this is people trying to think about what players we can bring in who would be a nice fit around Zach over the idea of getting rid of him, pretty much like we've been doing all year long w/nothing happening in terms of roster moves because nobody out there wanted any part of him up to now... pretty much exactly how this franchise mistakenly tried to milk whatever positive results out of that ill-fated Marbury trade by bringing in players like Tiny Tim, Jalen Rose, Nazr Mohammed, etc.

like i told u guys a long time ago, the more things change, the more they stay the same... it's time to break away from the mold & try something new.

I agree with the right now part. But forget about the right now, what about when he has 2 yrs or 1 1/2.

There will allways be a team willing to take a shot on a 27-28 yr old who can produce 20-10 who has 2-1.5 yrs left if all you would be asking for is a contract one yr shorter even if it was a scrub role player you were sending back.

Nobody is trying to hold on to Randolph, we(I anyway) just don't want to get fleeced in the deal. If the deal were to go down I wouldn't cry over it for weeks, but I would be dissapointed that Walsh allowed Philly to rape us and overpaid because he lacked patience. Overpaying to get what you want = Layden & Isiah.
https://vote.nba.com/en Vote for your Knicks.
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
6/7/2008  10:37 PM
i guess it would all depend on what Walsh did w/the pick but i for one am gonna trust whatever he decides to do, w/this trade or w/o it.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
6/7/2008  11:24 PM
Posted by newyorknewyork:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by newyorknewyork:
Posted by TMS:
Posted by newyorknewyork:

I don't care about the #6 pick(unless Mayo is available) as much as I care about use getting fleeced value wise in this deal. Philly needs to add something to this proposed deal like a draft pick for the 2010 offseason so we could keep the better one and offer the worse one to Utah

i don't think it's unreasonable to try & get something else out of the deal, but u also don't wanna pull too much of the Isiah wheeling & dealing hocus pocus on other GM's & turn them off to the deal altogether either if u ask me... this deal offers us a great chance to gain the cap flexibility that Walsh has made his #1 goal since he got here... i don't see why we should be so quick to discount its merits.

Forget that im telling them they need to add more to the deal. Its not like im trying to rape them, im just trying to not get fleeced. I think they still are coming away with a steal, Randolph is overpaid like many other players but he produces good numbers its not like he is a overpaid guy that offers minimal ala Dampier. Then add in the value that the #6 lottery pick hold and we are getting fleeced in this deal. Its as simple as that really, Id tell them they are fleecing me with that deal and to at least give us some value back I want there 2010 pick.
Two questions: What in your opinion are the reasons why we're trying so hard to get rid of Zach? And why would all of those reasons not make it extremely difficult for Philly to be willing to take Zach?

What in your opinion are the reasons why we're trying so hard to get rid of Zach?

#1 because we want to get cap flexability
#2 becauce Curry & Randolph don't fit together
#3 because Randolph isn't the ideal forward for D'Antoni's style
#4 he isn't a strong team player

And why would all of those reasons not make it extremely difficult for Philly to be willing to take Zach?

Randolph will fit nicely along side of Dalembert, Andre Miller will be the highest level pass first PG he has ever played with, Philly desperatly needs a go to option in the post. Randolph hogging the ball a some won't be as big an issue because Philly needs a scorer like him. By unloading Evens deal in the trade Philly would end up paying 10.6mil a season on average for 3 seasons getting 20-10. Randolph is a very nice fit for them. All that plus they want the #6 lottery pick.

Philly just pushed Detroit in the playoffs and are hungry to advance further. They probably feel Randolph can push them to the next level. But they also want to move up in the draft I guessing for Eric Gordan or Westbrook and to try and become a true contender. I don't see them with many options to land any player as talented as Randolph without moving someone from there core (making it a lateral move and not an advancing move)or adding a bad contract & giving up there draft pick. They don't have a lot of pieces to play with. Then there is the fact that they have to resign Andre Igoudala who has a qualifying offer. So there options to improve the way they want to aren't very strong. Randolph is probably there best option for them to improve. The team willing to be the most patient is the team who will be in position of strength.

Randolph for Evens in a straight up in a talent for cap flexability move is what I would offer. If they want the #6 pick as well then they are going to have to pay for that with another draft pick. If that is to steep a price then so be it. I would have no problem keeping my #6 lottery pick or going in another direction with a different team possibly Minny and trying to land the #3 pick. Have D'Antoni put Randolph in the best position to succeed, Then check his value again when his contract is in a position to let us deal from strength rather then weakness.
Fair enough. I think you have a much higher view of Zach than I do. I hope Mo Cheeks does too.
islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
6/8/2008  1:53 AM
For those who are against making this proposed trade, what do you think is Zach's trade value?

The term 20-10 has been thrown around. Is that what his value is? If it's not, how come?
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
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
6/8/2008  1:56 AM
that "20 & 10" logic was the driving factor that got him to NY & people were using that line against those of us who spoke out against the trade... ironic that same logic is being used to defend why he should be held onto.

the same "20 & 8" logic got Marbury here too but u don't hear guys using it now after Marbury's contract is finally due to expire.

interesting dichotomies at work here.

[Edited by - TMS on 06-07-2008 10:59 PM]
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
CrushAlot
Posts: 59764
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/25/2003
Member: #452
USA
6/8/2008  9:37 AM
Ainge had to be in win now mode because he had a terrible tenure with the Celtics up to this past year. Also, the Celtics were counting on getting Greg Oden. That was their plan. They were not proactive they reacted to getting the 5th pick after tanking their season. The Garnett deal had as much to do with Kevin McHale being in Minnesota as it did Ainge being a good GM.
I'm tired,I'm tired, I'm so tired right now......Kristaps Porzingis 1/3/18
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
6/8/2008  12:45 PM
this Philly deal could have as much to do w/Mo Cheeks being in Philly in much the same manner... besides, we missed out on Rose/Beasely/Mayo too, wasn't that the hope going into the draft lottery?

anyway, the logic behind making a deal of this nature is there... now it's up to Walsh to decide if it's in our better interest to pull the trigger or not... personally i think it's worth it.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
newyorknewyork
Posts: 30259
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #541
6/8/2008  1:32 PM
I don't have a high opinion on Zack Randolph at all really, Looking at it from a buisness sense we are overpaying when we shouldn't have to.

Philly wants to try and fit all there needs & desires in one deal because they don't have many pieces to play with. So they want to add Randolph & move up all in one.

Randolph is a nice fit for them reguardless. Randolph for Evens straight up is a fair deal. Swapping the #6 for #16 is overpaying. There for if they want to even out the deal they are going to need to add another draft pick.

If Randolph had 5yrs left I would understand, but he has 3. If it was Eric Dampier with his 6pts 7.5rebs I would understand, but its Randolph who is 26yrs old & can produce 20pts 10rebs. The fact that he is 26yrs old, produces 20pts 10rebs & has 3yrs left the same yrs as Evens AND FILLS A NEED FOR THEM should make Randolph for Evens more then enough. They fill a need and we fill a need. Again if they want the #6 they need to add another draft pick and that would still be great value for them.

Nets in 2001 traded #7 pick for #13, #18 & #23. So by my calculations with Randolph for Evens being an even swap(even though they are still making out like bandits), And the #6 pick having the value of 3 mid to late first rd picks. Asking for #16 & a future draft pick is still a steal for Philly.
https://vote.nba.com/en Vote for your Knicks.
Anji
Posts: 25523
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 4/14/2006
Member: #1122
USA
6/8/2008  1:46 PM
I think the important part is the pick and not Zach. You pick sixth with a wider range to pick a good player with any decision you make. You want the chance to pick Roy or Gay or Brewer or Foye, what ever your reasoning you have a better chance at still getting a very good player when you pick in the first quarter of the draft.

You pick 16th and you usually get don't that chance to not pick the best player of your those slotted to be drafted and still end up with a very good player. Alot of times the guy isn't even in the league after 4 or 5 years. That is too much to pay to get rid of Zach for the knicks. We can't afford to have a player that is off the team in three years to be drafted.
"Really, all Americans want is a cold beer, warm p***y, and some place to s**t with a door on it." - Mr. Ford
Page 6 of 17 « First‹ Previous 4  5  6  7  8 Next ›Last »
« Reply To Topic
Where in the history of the NBA has a 20 year old 20-10 C traded with a HIGH lottery pick for
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