loweyecue wrote:We are already offering Denver a large expiring contract in Curry. And no I don't think adding Jordan Hill and pick to that would get us Melo. But you can keep trying to make that case if you like. And if we had the two first round picks like you suggest we wouldn't have Randolph to offer along with Gallo, because I don't think we could have completed the D Lee trade without the extra cap space that came out of the Jordan Hill trade. And without the Jordan Hill Trade I doubt we would even get Amare to come here an play with Lee, Jeffries and Duhon. So yeah, whatever dude.

1) Amare Stoudemire was going to play for whomever offered him $100,000,000 guaranteed dollars.

2) If you don't think the "flexibility" to add Jeffries' expriting contract, a first round pick (Or two with the swap), AND the possibility of Jordan Hill in addition to whatever the Knicks have on the table now would help sweeten the pot to acquire Anthony, - well then, you surely must think that the Knicks have barely any chance to land him without those squandered - yes squandered assets.

3) About being able to acquire Randolph without having made that terrible trade - I am no capologist, but I think you are just wrong about that. And further I don't give a rat's ass about Anthony Randolph until he shows me he is a basketball player, not just a basketball talent.

Regards,

oohah

rp wrote:
What if the Knicks drafted Jennings or Holiday instead of Hill so I guess you don't have any first round pick to trade for Melo? Isn't that hindsight?

No that is not hindsight, that is fiction.

But in your fictional scenario, I am pretty sure that the Knicks would not have had to trade a first rounder (And swap another) to Houston in order to dump Jared Jeffries and Jordan Hill in return for a washed up player. Because Jennings was an impact player from his first game and has actual value.

***

If Walsh had done the right thing and picked Jennings, Jennings probably would not have been included in any trade and everyone on this board would be walking on air with a star point guard in the making and the Knicks would have won 8 - 10 games more last season. Just look at what Jennings did with the Bucks.

oohah

tj23 wrote:Look how many teams cleared out cap space without giving up a young player picked in the 1st round. I didnt care for hill but i think we could have gotten more for him. NY was maybe a bit desperate and overall I'm not mad we landed Amare and we should attract another big FA or 2.

I didn't think Jordan Hill was a good pick for the Knicks at all either. But it was a shame to trade Hill, picks, and an expiring contract, for McGrady and cap space then shoot an airball.

oohah

martin wrote:
Miami trade Beasley after the acquired LeBron.

Yes I know. That is why I said "AND" they got LeBron, not "FOR" LeBron. Beasley was simply unneeded at that point so his potential asking price was not beneficial to the team.

However, your comment furthers my point in opposition to umynot's point in that there is no comparison to what Miami did with Beasley as opposed to what the Knicks did with Hill, Jeffries, and 2 picks. No comparison at all.

oohah

Walsh was the first to admit the TMac trade was a financial trade, he didnt like doing it and had reservations, but also thought he needed to be able to sign the 2nd max guy to really make something happen.

The swap this year isnt a huge deal as we are very close if not better than the Rockets, and at least the 2012 pick has top 5 protection so if there was a disaster year and we win a top pick we dont get hosed like we did with the Isiah trades.

Without the TMac trade no Amare. Without Amare no Carmello.

Saying Amare is an injury risk is a cheap support to your arguement. The eyeball thing was weird and not a wear and tear injury. Take that away and Amare has probably been the most durable player over the last 4 years.

As for firing the coach? If he doesnt produce I'm all for it, but we fired Chaney, Lenny, Larry and Isiah and the results were the same. I think this roster has some issues but over all is pretty talented and definatly a playoff team and thats my expectation. No playoffs and MDA can hit the road.

loweyecue wrote:
Well I don't think Denver would give a rat's ass about Jordan Hill and some stupid swap with a team that has Amare + Melo and is a lock for the playoffs.

Just like in our previous discussions, you keep focusing on Jordan Hill, because he is the least useful part of that trade. The worst part of Jordan hill is that the Knicks picked him, a raw power forward while a phenom star point guard was on the board and the Knicks had a huge hole at PG as well as 14 power forwards under contract.

Here is why the trade was bad:
A) The Knicks NEVER USED THE CAP SPACE THEY GAINED, SO THE TRADE WAS FOR NAUGHT.
B the Knicks WOULD HAVE HAD THAT SPACE ANYWAY + THEIR ASSETS TO USE IN A TRADE NOW, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR CARMELO ANTHONY.
C) The Knicks gave up picks THAT COULD BE USED TO OBTAIN CARMELO ANTHONY.
D) THE Knicks TRADED AN EXPIRING THAT CAN BE USED AS AN ASSET TO OBTAIN CARMELO ANTHONY.

***

But then you are stating that somehow giving up all those assets give the Knicks a better shot at Carmelo? (Bolded above) Huh? Less assets make a better shot at Anthony though every report states the opposite. How does that work again? So I am not sure what you are missing here, or maybe I am missing what you are saying, so please explain it to me. If the Knicks get Carmelo, it is DESPITE the Houston trade, not because of it.

***

I think you are saying this: no matter what, the Hill/Jeffries/Picks trade was good, even though it was only for immediate cap relief which the Knicks never go to make use of.

I am trying to explain to you that they would have that cap space + assets right now without the trade. It would have been okay to make the trade except they gave up too many assets to whiff on LeBron. Do you understand what I am saying now?

oohah

oohah wrote:

loweyecue wrote:
Well I don't think Denver would give a rat's ass about Jordan Hill and some stupid swap with a team that has Amare + Melo and is a lock for the playoffs.

Just like in our previous discussions, you keep focusing on Jordan Hill, because he is the least useful part of that trade. The worst part of Jordan hill is that the Knicks picked him, a raw power forward while a phenom star point guard was on the board and the Knicks had a huge hole at PG as well as 14 power forwards under contract.

Here is why the trade was bad:
A) The Knicks NEVER USED THE CAP SPACE THEY GAINED, SO THE TRADE WAS FOR NAUGHT.
B the Knicks WOULD HAVE HAD THAT SPACE ANYWAY + THER ASSETS TO USE IN A TRADE NOW, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR CARMELO ANTHONY.
C) The Knicks gave up picks THAT COULD BE USED TO OBTAIN CARMELO ANTHONY.
D) THE Knicks TRADED AN EXPIRING THAT CAN BE USED AS AN ASSET TO OBTAIN CARMELO ANTHONY.
E) The Knicks TRADED PICKS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN USED AS AN ASSET TO OBTAIN ANTHONY TO OBTAIN CARMELO ANTHONY.

***

But then you are stating that somehow giving up all those assets give the Knicks a better show at Carmelo? (Boldeed above) huh? So I am not sure what you are missing here, or maybe I am missing what you are saying, so please explain it to me. If the Knicks get Carmelo, it is DESPITE teh Houston trade, not because of it.

***

I think you are saying this: no matter what, the Hill/Jeffries/Picks trade was good, even though it was only for immediate cap relief which the Knicks never go to make use of.

I am trying to explain to you that they would have that cap space now without the trade. It would have been okay to make the trade except they gave up too many assets to whiff on LeBron. Do you understand what I am saying now?

oohah

So we most certainly DID use the cap space gained in the Hill (TMac trade). We used the cap space on:
Felton $7mm
Mosgov $3mm
Turiaf $4mm
Azubuke $3.3
Anthony Randolph $2mm

Now granted, those players arent the caliber of star talent Walsh was looking for when he made the Hill trade, however Azubuke, Mosgov and AR do represent good young talent that we used the cap space to add. Felton was the starting PG on a playoff team and one of the better defenders in the league at that position an was also added using cap space.

Like I said... not what Walsh was looking for but at the least I would Felton/Mosgov/Turiaf/Azu/AR are fair value for Hill, JJ, a 2012 pick (with protection) and a swap in this years draft.

So while that trade didnt produce a Lebron/Wade/Bosh/Dirk/etc caliber player it was at least used to add talent and depth to the roster. Equivilent of what we gave up.

Saying we got nothing back from the TMac/Hill trade and would have had that cap space anyway simply isnt true.

No, we were the only team that was willing to commit to Amare before LeBron made his decision.

Chicago and NJ didn't have quite enough space for two maxes, without clearing more contracts.

If Amare was still on the market after LBJ chose Miami, Chicago and NJ both would've been calling up Amare. Hell, maybe even Cleveland and Toronto would have pursued him, dangling their large TPE's.

The reality is, when July 1st hit, Amare flew to NY, didn't meet with other teams, went to Broadway shows, a Yankees game, Dolan's BBQ, then signed on Monday. He had meetings scheduled with the Nets and Bulls on Tues and Wed but cancelled them. To me, that's the sign of someone who had NY as his primary destination in mind. Even when we were working a S&T with Phoenix after the fact, Amare didn't push for a 6th year...he even took a lower starting salary to accommodate future acquisitions.

In truth, I think Amare would've signed with us regardless if we had room for LeBron as well. I remember him commenting about how he wanted to be the man/leader of his team last season. However, having that space for two maxes allowed us to reciprocate our commitment to Amare before Chicago or NJ or another team made him an offer.

fishmike wrote:Bulls wanted Amare for the max. Boozer was plan B

The why did the Bull not sign Amare Stoudemire? The signings happened on the same day. Seems to me you are speculating.

oohah

scoshin wrote:I never understood the argument that "we were the only team that was willing to pay Amare $100M, and that's why he chose us."

No, we were the only team that was willing to commit to Amare before LeBron made his decision.

Chicago and NJ didn't have quite enough space for two maxes, without clearing more contracts.

If Amare was still on the market after LBJ chose Miami, Chicago and NJ both would've been calling up Amare. Hell, maybe even Cleveland and Toronto would have pursued him, dangling their large TPE's.

The reality is, when July 1st hit, Amare flew to NY, didn't meet with other teams, went to Broadway shows, a Yankees game, Dolan's BBQ, then signed on Monday. He had meetings scheduled with the Nets and Bulls on Tues and Wed but cancelled them. To me, that's the sign of someone who had NY as his primary destination in mind. Even when we were working a S&T with Phoenix after the fact, Amare didn't push for a 6th year...he even took a lower starting salary to accommodate future acquisitions.

In truth, I think Amare would've signed with us regardless if we had room for LeBron as well. I remember him commenting about how he wanted to be the man/leader of his team last season. However, having that space for two maxes allowed us to reciprocate our commitment to Amare before Chicago or NJ or another team made him an offer.

Rampant Speculation.

oohah