Posted by islesfan:

Posted by newyorknewyork:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by martin:

Posted by newyorknewyork:

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.

Agreed with all of the above and I would add even more. Randolph FITS on their team. Dalembert is a rebounding, shotblocking, very mobile center; you have guards who lock down players; PG who passes and moves; etc. Philly lacks a post presence and a go-to scorer.

Wow, is there anything that can go wrong for the Sixers if they make this trade? Why is Randolph's value that depressed where he would be traded even up for a bench role player? Isn't Philly assuming that giant risk, while the Knicks are clearing the $70M they would pay for him and ridding themselves of someone whose behavior and selfish play has drastically depressed his value? That's why swapping first round picks makes it a reasonable trade, one that the Sixers might actually listen to.

If that trade goes down, I'll be the one praising Donnie Walsh. I'll be the one confident that Walsh can still find a solid player at 16, while some of you cry about how Walsh can only be trusted with high lottery picks.

The fact that they swapped him for a bench role player that doesn't even have an expiring contract is what takes most of the risk away its not like we are asking for Evens & #16. What ever risk they take is also leveled by potential gain. If Randolph was a free agent and offerd to sign there for a 3yr deal at 10.6mil you think that they would turn that down?

We would be giving Philly a lineup of Miller,Iggy,Young,Randolph,Dalembert & the #6 lottery pick.

While we wouldn't even have immediate cap space because we still would have Curry, Crawford & Jefferies on our team. Not to mention that we would probably want to resign Lee & possibly Nate Robinson. So we would be giving Philly a loaded team and possibly still not have cap space by 2010.

There is risk on our side as well, passing up on the #6 pick means that we are passing up on a chance and possibly a potential star. There is also the risk that we still don't get cap space by 2010, then there is the risk that even if we do get cap space we end up with a 2nd or 3rd tier free agent.

Randolph for Evens is a fair deal. They both fit what both teams are trying to do, both sides have risk and potential gains.

Where is the risk for the Knicks in a Randolph for Evans even up trade?

Posted by newyorknewyork:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by newyorknewyork:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by martin:

Posted by newyorknewyork:

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.

Agreed with all of the above and I would add even more. Randolph FITS on their team. Dalembert is a rebounding, shotblocking, very mobile center; you have guards who lock down players; PG who passes and moves; etc. Philly lacks a post presence and a go-to scorer.

Wow, is there anything that can go wrong for the Sixers if they make this trade? Why is Randolph's value that depressed where he would be traded even up for a bench role player? Isn't Philly assuming that giant risk, while the Knicks are clearing the $70M they would pay for him and ridding themselves of someone whose behavior and selfish play has drastically depressed his value? That's why swapping first round picks makes it a reasonable trade, one that the Sixers might actually listen to.

If that trade goes down, I'll be the one praising Donnie Walsh. I'll be the one confident that Walsh can still find a solid player at 16, while some of you cry about how Walsh can only be trusted with high lottery picks.

The fact that they swapped him for a bench role player that doesn't even have an expiring contract is what takes most of the risk away its not like we are asking for Evens & #16. What ever risk they take is also leveled by potential gain. If Randolph was a free agent and offerd to sign there for a 3yr deal at 10.6mil you think that they would turn that down?

We would be giving Philly a lineup of Miller,Iggy,Young,Randolph,Dalembert & the #6 lottery pick.

While we wouldn't even have immediate cap space because we still would have Curry, Crawford & Jefferies on our team. Not to mention that we would probably want to resign Lee & possibly Nate Robinson. So we would be giving Philly a loaded team and possibly still not have cap space by 2010.

There is risk on our side as well, passing up on the #6 pick means that we are passing up on a chance and possibly a potential star. There is also the risk that we still don't get cap space by 2010, then there is the risk that even if we do get cap space we end up with a 2nd or 3rd tier free agent.

Randolph for Evens is a fair deal. They both fit what both teams are trying to do, both sides have risk and potential gains.

Where is the risk for the Knicks in a Randolph for Evans even up trade?

There is no real risk for the Knicks in Randolph for Evans straight up. But there isn't as much potential gain as Philly would be receiving either.

Philly doesn't have many options to improve other than there #16pick and like 7-8mil in cap space after they resign Iggy. What other big men are available to improve them without giving up someone from there core? They aren't getting Elton Brand without giving up Iggy in a S&T. They aren't getting Jamison without giving up Andre Miller or Dalembert. They aren't getting Rasheed Wallace without giving up Dalembert.

Maybe they can get Yi by taking back Bobby Simmons contract back and giving up the #16.

Channing Frye, Chris Wilcox, Kenyon Martin, Nene Hilario, Al Harrington, Kenny Thomas, Abdul Rahim are there best options.

Maybe they could offer #16 & a future pick for Al Harrington.

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by newyorknewyork:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by martin:

Posted by newyorknewyork:

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.

Agreed with all of the above and I would add even more. Randolph FITS on their team. Dalembert is a rebounding, shotblocking, very mobile center; you have guards who lock down players; PG who passes and moves; etc. Philly lacks a post presence and a go-to scorer.

Wow, is there anything that can go wrong for the Sixers if they make this trade? Why is Randolph's value that depressed where he would be traded even up for a bench role player? Isn't Philly assuming that giant risk, while the Knicks are clearing the $70M they would pay for him and ridding themselves of someone whose behavior and selfish play has drastically depressed his value? That's why swapping first round picks makes it a reasonable trade, one that the Sixers might actually listen to.

If that trade goes down, I'll be the one praising Donnie Walsh. I'll be the one confident that Walsh can still find a solid player at 16, while some of you cry about how Walsh can only be trusted with high lottery picks.

The fact that they swapped him for a bench role player that doesn't even have an expiring contract is what takes most of the risk away its not like we are asking for Evens & #16. What ever risk they take is also leveled by potential gain. If Randolph was a free agent and offerd to sign there for a 3yr deal at 10.6mil you think that they would turn that down?

We would be giving Philly a lineup of Miller,Iggy,Young,Randolph,Dalembert & the #6 lottery pick.

While we wouldn't even have immediate cap space because we still would have Curry, Crawford & Jefferies on our team. Not to mention that we would probably want to resign Lee & possibly Nate Robinson. So we would be giving Philly a loaded team and possibly still not have cap space by 2010.

There is risk on our side as well, passing up on the #6 pick means that we are passing up on a chance and possibly a potential star. There is also the risk that we still don't get cap space by 2010, then there is the risk that even if we do get cap space we end up with a 2nd or 3rd tier free agent.

Randolph for Evens is a fair deal. They both fit what both teams are trying to do, both sides have risk and potential gains.

Where is the risk for the Knicks in a Randolph for Evans even up trade?

Zach Randolph, 07-08- 17.6 pts., 10.3 rebs., .459 FG%, 2 ast., .9 stls, 2.7 TO's per game.

Reggie Evans, 07-08-5.3 pts., 7.5 rebs., .439 FG%, .5 ast., .8 stls., 1.3 TO's per game.

[Edited by - joec32033 on 08 June 2008 18:50]

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by newyorknewyork:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by newyorknewyork:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by newyorknewyork:

How would they pay 70mil?

They are going into this offseason with a 35.7mil salary cap. Now subtract Evens 4.6mil next season = 31.1mil salary cap. Add Randolphs 14.6 = 45.7 salary cap. Now say they give Iggy a 12mil dollar contract, that equates to 57-58mil salary cap. Say they give him Rashard Lewis contract 15.6mil. That would equate to 61-62mil salary cap.

he National Basketball Association today announced that the Salary Cap for the 2007-08 season will be $55.630 million. The new Cap goes into effect at 12:01 a.m. ET on Wednesday, July 11, when the league’s “moratorium period” ends and teams can begin signing free agents and making trades.

The tax level for the 2007-08 season has been set at $67.865 million. Any team whose team salary exceeds that figure will pay a $1 tax for each $1 by which it exceeds $67.865 million.

I don't think Philly would care to much about being 7mil over the cap which will probably go up anyway to like 57mil next season in order to challenge for the ECC.

Like I said, they either have to accept that they will not add more payroll (which should be the case only if you have a finished product) or add payroll, which would put them over the luxury tax min. You're asking them to spend a quarter of their non luxury tax on one player (with a lot of baggage) and to spread the remaining three quarters on the other fourteen players. Do you really think Zach is worth that?

Another way of looking at it is that their taking on $35 mil in salary over 3 years (even without the luxury tax). If Zach was an FA, would you sign him for $12 mil a year for 3 years? I don't think any team would give him much more than the MLE (actually probably not even more than the MLE) let alone $12 mil a year.

Philly wants to win, most teams that want to win are willing to be over the salary cap for 3yrs in order to try and win. Also how much more payroll do you think they are going to try and add with a line-up of Miller, Iggy, Young, Randolph, Dalembert? They would still have there #16 and future picks, and mid level to try and keep improving.

He would be getting 10.6mil for 3yrs thats the average salary they would be paying him by unloading Evens, not 12.

You are going by your standards and think that every NBA team is going to go by your standards. Randolph would easily make 10.6mil for 3 seasons by an NBA team, EASILY. Any 26yr old who produces 20-10 will get 10mil in the open market no matter how much baggage they had. There will allways be a gm, coach, owner who thinks they have what it took to win with him.

Guys who are "EASILY" worth $10.6 mil year would be worth more in a trade than Francis and Frye. (Technically, the correct value is over $11 mil annually.) I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree here, though. I hope you're right and we can take advantage of Philly though.

I guess we are.

Portland was about to land Oden & had Aldridge in the wings. Thats why they could afford to dump Randolph for Francis & Frye. Randolph also had 4 yrs left on his deal at the time. 3yrs 11mil is not that crazy of a contract. You keep thinking of Randolph as if he is over the hill like Steve Francis. Notice also how we had to give up a shorter contract & a prospect in order to get talent in return in a deal where Randolphs value was worse then it ever was. Why didn't Portland give up a draft pick or a prospect like Outlaw to us along with Randolph to unload him for Malik Rose & Q or Jerome James expiring contracts?

We aren't really taking advantage of Philly either because its a fair deal. Only thing we are doing is exploiting there desire to win and they would be exploiting our desire to shed salary.

because they were trading with Isiah! (That said, they still got very little for Zach other than cap space and addition by subtraction.)

Posted by BRIGGS:

Zach randolph is a non issue for Knicks. He is not going to be part of core in the future. If he is here or not does not mean anything to me. Trading him does not guarantee FA and selling him at a low point is foolish. If we cant get a reasonable deal for him as in piece for piece without extra assets-I will let Mike D do what he is good at making players look much better. The only benefit of trading him now is that he is gone--whoiever thinks that is worth letting our lottery pick go is out of their gord.

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by BRIGGS:

Zach randolph is a non issue for Knicks. He is not going to be part of core in the future. If he is here or not does not mean anything to me. Trading him does not guarantee FA and selling him at a low point is foolish. If we cant get a reasonable deal for him as in piece for piece without extra assets-I will let Mike D do what he is good at making players look much better. The only benefit of trading him now is that he is gone--whoiever thinks that is worth letting our lottery pick go is out of their gord.

Why wouldn't a young 20-10 player be considered a part of a rebuilding teams future?

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by newyorknewyork:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by newyorknewyork:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by newyorknewyork:

How would they pay 70mil?

They are going into this offseason with a 35.7mil salary cap. Now subtract Evens 4.6mil next season = 31.1mil salary cap. Add Randolphs 14.6 = 45.7 salary cap. Now say they give Iggy a 12mil dollar contract, that equates to 57-58mil salary cap. Say they give him Rashard Lewis contract 15.6mil. That would equate to 61-62mil salary cap.

he National Basketball Association today announced that the Salary Cap for the 2007-08 season will be $55.630 million. The new Cap goes into effect at 12:01 a.m. ET on Wednesday, July 11, when the league’s “moratorium period” ends and teams can begin signing free agents and making trades.

The tax level for the 2007-08 season has been set at $67.865 million. Any team whose team salary exceeds that figure will pay a $1 tax for each $1 by which it exceeds $67.865 million.

I don't think Philly would care to much about being 7mil over the cap which will probably go up anyway to like 57mil next season in order to challenge for the ECC.

Like I said, they either have to accept that they will not add more payroll (which should be the case only if you have a finished product) or add payroll, which would put them over the luxury tax min. You're asking them to spend a quarter of their non luxury tax on one player (with a lot of baggage) and to spread the remaining three quarters on the other fourteen players. Do you really think Zach is worth that?

Another way of looking at it is that their taking on $35 mil in salary over 3 years (even without the luxury tax). If Zach was an FA, would you sign him for $12 mil a year for 3 years? I don't think any team would give him much more than the MLE (actually probably not even more than the MLE) let alone $12 mil a year.

Philly wants to win, most teams that want to win are willing to be over the salary cap for 3yrs in order to try and win. Also how much more payroll do you think they are going to try and add with a line-up of Miller, Iggy, Young, Randolph, Dalembert? They would still have there #16 and future picks, and mid level to try and keep improving.

He would be getting 10.6mil for 3yrs thats the average salary they would be paying him by unloading Evens, not 12.

You are going by your standards and think that every NBA team is going to go by your standards. Randolph would easily make 10.6mil for 3 seasons by an NBA team, EASILY. Any 26yr old who produces 20-10 will get 10mil in the open market no matter how much baggage they had. There will allways be a gm, coach, owner who thinks they have what it took to win with him.

Guys who are "EASILY" worth $10.6 mil year would be worth more in a trade than Francis and Frye. (Technically, the correct value is over $11 mil annually.) I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree here, though. I hope you're right and we can take advantage of Philly though.

I guess we are.

Portland was about to land Oden & had Aldridge in the wings. Thats why they could afford to dump Randolph for Francis & Frye. Randolph also had 4 yrs left on his deal at the time. 3yrs 11mil is not that crazy of a contract. You keep thinking of Randolph as if he is over the hill like Steve Francis. Notice also how we had to give up a shorter contract & a prospect in order to get talent in return in a deal where Randolphs value was worse then it ever was. Why didn't Portland give up a draft pick or a prospect like Outlaw to us along with Randolph to unload him for Malik Rose & Q or Jerome James expiring contracts?

We aren't really taking advantage of Philly either because its a fair deal. Only thing we are doing is exploiting there desire to win and they would be exploiting our desire to shed salary.

because they were trading with Isiah! (That said, they still got very little for Zach other than cap space and addition by subtraction.)

Don't downplay what Portland got in that trade. That cap space, in the present and for the life of Randolph's contract, and the addition just to subtract that cancer is huge.

Oh I agree what they got is huge but it wouldn't be huge if Zach were a legit, solid starting PF.

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by newyorknewyork:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by newyorknewyork:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by newyorknewyork:

How would they pay 70mil?

They are going into this offseason with a 35.7mil salary cap. Now subtract Evens 4.6mil next season = 31.1mil salary cap. Add Randolphs 14.6 = 45.7 salary cap. Now say they give Iggy a 12mil dollar contract, that equates to 57-58mil salary cap. Say they give him Rashard Lewis contract 15.6mil. That would equate to 61-62mil salary cap.

he National Basketball Association today announced that the Salary Cap for the 2007-08 season will be $55.630 million. The new Cap goes into effect at 12:01 a.m. ET on Wednesday, July 11, when the league’s “moratorium period” ends and teams can begin signing free agents and making trades.

The tax level for the 2007-08 season has been set at $67.865 million. Any team whose team salary exceeds that figure will pay a $1 tax for each $1 by which it exceeds $67.865 million.

I don't think Philly would care to much about being 7mil over the cap which will probably go up anyway to like 57mil next season in order to challenge for the ECC.

Like I said, they either have to accept that they will not add more payroll (which should be the case only if you have a finished product) or add payroll, which would put them over the luxury tax min. You're asking them to spend a quarter of their non luxury tax on one player (with a lot of baggage) and to spread the remaining three quarters on the other fourteen players. Do you really think Zach is worth that?

Another way of looking at it is that their taking on $35 mil in salary over 3 years (even without the luxury tax). If Zach was an FA, would you sign him for $12 mil a year for 3 years? I don't think any team would give him much more than the MLE (actually probably not even more than the MLE) let alone $12 mil a year.

Philly wants to win, most teams that want to win are willing to be over the salary cap for 3yrs in order to try and win. Also how much more payroll do you think they are going to try and add with a line-up of Miller, Iggy, Young, Randolph, Dalembert? They would still have there #16 and future picks, and mid level to try and keep improving.

He would be getting 10.6mil for 3yrs thats the average salary they would be paying him by unloading Evens, not 12.

You are going by your standards and think that every NBA team is going to go by your standards. Randolph would easily make 10.6mil for 3 seasons by an NBA team, EASILY. Any 26yr old who produces 20-10 will get 10mil in the open market no matter how much baggage they had. There will allways be a gm, coach, owner who thinks they have what it took to win with him.

Guys who are "EASILY" worth $10.6 mil year would be worth more in a trade than Francis and Frye. (Technically, the correct value is over $11 mil annually.) I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree here, though. I hope you're right and we can take advantage of Philly though.

I guess we are.

Portland was about to land Oden & had Aldridge in the wings. Thats why they could afford to dump Randolph for Francis & Frye. Randolph also had 4 yrs left on his deal at the time. 3yrs 11mil is not that crazy of a contract. You keep thinking of Randolph as if he is over the hill like Steve Francis. Notice also how we had to give up a shorter contract & a prospect in order to get talent in return in a deal where Randolphs value was worse then it ever was. Why didn't Portland give up a draft pick or a prospect like Outlaw to us along with Randolph to unload him for Malik Rose & Q or Jerome James expiring contracts?

We aren't really taking advantage of Philly either because its a fair deal. Only thing we are doing is exploiting there desire to win and they would be exploiting our desire to shed salary.

because they were trading with Isiah! (That said, they still got very little for Zach other than cap space and addition by subtraction.)

Don't downplay what Portland got in that trade. That cap space, in the present and for the life of Randolph's contract, and the addition just to subtract that cancer is huge.

Oh I agree what they got is huge but it wouldn't be huge if Zach were a legit, solid starting PF.

Hey Bonn how many PF in the league have the ability to average 24 points 10 rebounds 2 assists shooting 47% a season? I know there are a couple but I think that would qualify you as a legit starting PF in the NBA.

Posted by BRIGGS:

I never mentioned getting rid of anyone. What i said was I would NOT give up my lottery pick to do so like the article suggested. If the Knicks feel like he wont be a fit[in fact he was never a fit here because of Curry] then I would trade him straight up for a Reggie Evans as an example. I will not give an extra asset to trade Randolph for a much lesser player--I will not give up nate balkman a 2nd round pick not evena NY Knick shoelace. Player for player swap--end of story. Zach is not a high priority to me--getting players for the future is the only thing I care about.

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by BRIGGS:

I never mentioned getting rid of anyone. What i said was I would NOT give up my lottery pick to do so like the article suggested. If the Knicks feel like he wont be a fit[in fact he was never a fit here because of Curry] then I would trade him straight up for a Reggie Evans as an example. I will not give an extra asset to trade Randolph for a much lesser player--I will not give up nate balkman a 2nd round pick not evena NY Knick shoelace. Player for player swap--end of story. Zach is not a high priority to me--getting players for the future is the only thing I care about.

So why don't you think that a guy, who you think only has a handful of peers in the entire league, isn't someone to be held onto for the future, if that's all you care about?

Well I don't know why I have to mention the same thing again but if you take the time to read--I said that I do not think Zach was a good fit here when we traded for him because of Curry and he does not fit the quick transitional game of Dantoni. Its pretty simple--he doesnt fit this team. I have very little caring about Zach randolph--I guess you do?? I am only concerned with acquiring players that fit the new system. If we cant move him for a reasonable deal--I think that Mike D will have to start with a bit slower pace and put guys like Zach and curry into position to play up to their best of their abilities. Zach's contract next year has only 2 years left on it. If at that time we can find a reasonable move--he would be a sure-fire MLE player--we could buy him out for 8-9mm less spread over two years. There will be an end result to Randolph on the Knicks soon enough---were not going any place next year--it's a great time to try to increase some values of players on this team--absolutely no-brainer non even a question mark that there is no neccessity in anyway shape or form to use a 6th pcik in the lottery to expedite it. It does not guarantee FA it has very little value.

So you think any type of breakdown of Randolph should only concern his numbers and not the things that have caused his trade value to drop as low as it has?

I only ask this because in every response to this proposed trade, you fail to mention Randolph's excess baggage, pretending like it doesn't or shouldn't matter when it obviously does. The fact that you're arguing with people who understand that it matters only exacerbates the problem.