Posted by gunsnewing:

yeah Jackson is almost 30....they'll find someone late in the draft. still think he's better than moochie and brewer though!

Posted by fishmike:

Posted by gunsnewing:

yeah Jackson is almost 30....they'll find someone late in the draft. still think he's better than moochie and brewer though!

thats not exactly a ringing endorsement... wasnt Brewer waived? Hey.. he at least had that one great dunk. MSg is probably going to show all their "all ball" episodes early next year because half the guys will be traded before their episode is set to run


Does anyone else think of the Jackson 5 everytime they hear Jermain Jackson?

Posted by simrud:

When you trade two guys with expiring deals or small deals that can be asily waived, you are not freeing up anything.

You added a guy who is signed at huge money for for 2 more yars, which means instead of gettin a legit prospect, you are gonna be stuck with Mo Taylor at the end of the bench.

And you can count on me pointin out that the trade every time you bring this thread up btw

Posted by simrud:

Let's try this again, count till 10 come down, here we go.

OK, Bonn, this is how roster spots work.

You have 15 on you team okaaay...

Now when you trade away 2 guys that don't have to be on your roster next year, or the year after, for a guy that has to be on your roster for the next 2 yeras, you just occupied an extra roster spot.

Let's break this down:

Next year, if we do not trade those two contracts away, you would have 2 available spots from them.

Now, you replaced them with 1 contract that has to be there next year.

2-1 = 1, okaaay?

I hope you got it this time, cause if you did not I give up.

Posted by Bonn1997:

Simrud,
Mo Taylor has ONE, not two, more year on his contract than Vin and Moochie. If we hadn't done that trade, we would have Vin and Moochie on the payroll for next year instead of Mo and thus would have one more free roster spot. The following year, we would have neither Vin nor Moochie but instead now have Mo and one less free roster spot. 1-1 = 0. Technically, it also freed up a roster spot this year too. You could say it freed up a roster spot for this year and next year, and took up an extra spot for the following year, which would be a net gain of 1 roster spots. Sorry if you can't do the math. 1-1 always = 0 and 1 + 1 - 1 always = 1.

Posted by Ira:

Taylor was brought here because he fits what Herb Williams was trying to do on offense. He is our best low post scorer on offense when Sweetney isn't in the game. Herb has changed our offense to one that empasizes the low post - and like it or not, it's working. We got all of that for a late second round pick and two useless players.

Posted by fishmike:

Ira... the issue is with the philosophy. Its not about Mo Taylor. He's not bad, he will have his moments. Last night was one of them. What got the Knicks in the postion they are in now was always trading for players that
a) have longer contracts than the guy(s) they were traded for
b) are grossly overpaid to begin with
c) are on the downside of their career or have already played their best ball (no upside)
d) including draft picks in trades to aquire these players.
The Mo Taylor trade has ALL those negatives.
Another issue is roster spots. we have too many players under contract for next year. I think we have 10 NOT including Ariza. So if we have the good draft everyone is hoping for where are these guys going to play? Are we going to waive Butler (our free first rounder) to make room? Maybe we buyout Penny? The options are thin... its a major issue. Not to mention the fact that we simply dont need Mo Taylor. We now have 5 PFs and all have at least 2 more years AFTER this one on their deals.