I know It has been bashed for the James signing although still think James may work out as backup or trade bait. It was a deal I dont' think IT would have made in hindsight. And we don't even have to say anything about his draft abilitie. Here is an interesting post on the Star Ledger Knicks forum

7209. Isiah Thomas' trading abilities...
by stretch1, 1/9/06 15:30 ET
Whoi says Zeke cant make trade?

# Starting point guard. Check.

# Starting center. Check.

That's like getting a catcher, shortstop and center fielder for a major league baseball team.

Again, what did we give up for Marbs? What did Phoenix actually keep? Lampe, Vujanic, Kirk Snyder, McDyess, Ward, Eisley. Still owe a #1. McDyess a nice role player for Detroit. Check.

The Bulls definitely Traded THE WRONG MAN! When Chandler played NEXT TO CURRY he was a stellar sixth man/defensive juggernaut. Hey, a lot of us thought he was the better player, and we were wrong. We haven't seen a ton of Curry/Frye, but look how Channing has emerged without having to shoulder the burden Chandler does with the Bulls.

Again, what did we give up? What did Chicago actually keep? Sweetney? A nice role player. Tim Thomas. Seems to me that Skiles misplayed that one...TT could at least be playing some PF for the Bulls...not like Sweetney is in such awesome shape. And AD has been a terrific vet presence, especially with the departure of KT.

Isiah's Trades, II

# Jamal. Someone explain to me again why this was a bad trade? Jamal has really grown up, improved his shot selection and PG skills, worked to improve in all areas, though he will never be an awesome defensive player, but can be an explosive offensive force. Cost us Trybanski (out of the league), Frank Williams (out of the league), Othella Harrington (nice role player for the Bulls...prefer him to Mo?) and Deke (nice back-up for Rockets). So Jamal for OH and Deke. I always liked Deke, and betcha Larry would like him, too. But another good deal for Isiah? Check.

# Mo Taylor. Cost us two bad contracts in Mookie and Vin and a #2. Vin gone. Mookster a bench player. Could Sweetney have given us on offense what Mo did the past two nights? Improving with every game, in better shape, effective midrange jumper and post game, and willing to brawl and take a charge. Check.

# Van Horn/Doleac. Certainly cost us some chemistry in short term. Beget TT/Nazr. TT helped net us Curry. Nazr helped net us Malik (I know, yawn, Isiah's David Wingate) and also David Lee (smile, David for Nazr straight up anyone?) and another late round #1. Check.

# Quentin/Nate Robinson. I haven't given up on Q yet, and though it looks like a poor match, still, Q is staying positive and being a good team mate (see him hit a three and bounce off the bench for N8 and David yesterday afternoon). And Nate is raw, but he is also a good defender, a terrific rebounder an improving offensive force (high percentage of threes, better passing under control) and a charismatic, catalytic competitor who seems to rally his team mates.

alot of money spent.
alot more losses.
3-0 doesn't change that.

we can re-visit this after the season.

Which trade? The Mo Taylor trade? Or the Malik Rose trade? Or giving the Bulls two unprotected picks? Or one of the other trades that's added to the record $125 million payroll for the second worst record in the league?

I think it is a little too early to start giving Isiah props given that the Knicks have only 'turned it around' for 3 games.

I agree w. every one of your trade analysius. Something lost on the national media with the trades IT has made is that we were not dealing from a position of strength. When you are dealing Eisley and Ward you going to have to take back a Penny. What Isiah has done is accumulate as much talent as possible and worry about chemistry later. We are now in the stages of sorting out the chemistry issue. I too have a hard time seeing how getting a Crawford for Othello and 48 year old Motombo is a bad deal. So we had to take JYD's contract, big deal...he wasn't a bad ball player and was a terrific team guy.

^ Marbury is 28 yrs old now. Not sure about your math.

I believe that IT, while far from perfect, has changed the complexion of the team from an aging overpaid, non athletic group to a young athletic group. If they do nothing they'll be at the cap the year after next.

At that time, all of the older players will be off the cap and the oldest players will Be James at 32 and Marbury at 30. Of course that's in aperfect world with no significant additions. It is likely one or more of the players coming off will be dealt and other salaries coming in its place.

I would ask who, of the players sent out in trades, would any you want back. Who has gone on to become a more valuable player?

If we look at the present core I believe it realistic to think that, in two years with reasonable development, they can contend. Kudos to Mr. Thomas.

Amen to this discussion. The Nazr/Rose deal in particularly had a bad rap -- interesting that many of the same sportswriters howling about giving up picks for Curry ignore the fact that David Lee and one more pick coming were part of that deal as well. Great move; I hope writers who bashed it will soon be coming out with columns about how wrong they were. Somehow I'm not seeing it.

And, yes, Layden's contracts are still around -- Isiah could have sat on his hands in his office for two years and still been way over the cap this year while fielding a team of Channing Frye, Trevor Ariza and the old ShandonEiseleyspoon core.

Posted by LBeast:

The next 5 years? Whats that year 8 into IT's "grand plan"? Who gets 8 years to start a contender? And dont tell me it was Layden's mess because the last of Layden's contracts comes off at the end of next season. THAT's where IT should have been shooting to be under the cap. BTW, Marbury will be 36 that year and Larry Brown will be long gone, but Jerome James might still be here. So if Isiah was looking 8 years down the line, why trade for Marbury in the first place. Isiah's tenure has been full of hasty moves, and wasted money.

I liked the Marbury move. The rest outside of the draft has been questionable at best.

[Edited by - LBeast on 01-10-2006 12:24 PM]

How could you in one breath say the Knicks should have rebuilt when Laydens players contracts would be up then on the other hand say you like the Marbury move.

Posted by OngBok:

Only the KVH trade left a sour taste in my mouth !! I will always HATE that trade !! Just think our line up could be ........

C = CURRY 7'0 back to the basket, clogs the middle
PF = FRYE 6'11 midrange jumper, post ups, runs the floor, rebounds
SF = KVH 6'10 Shoot the 3, rebounds, post ups, runs the floor

That is what your front line is suppose to do night in and night out !

KVH trade got us TT and his expiring contract which in turn got us Curry. You cant have KVH and Curry or TT and Curry on the same team after what happened in the Curry trade.

Posted by boomann:

And dont tell me it was Layden's mess because the last of Layden's contracts comes off at the end of next season.

Layden has been gone for 2 years and none of his players play for the current team, but yet and still his contracts are still around. Layden's residue is still everywhere around this team

You didnt actually read what I wrote. Layden't contracts come off the team at the end of next season. The other $100 million on the payroll will be ALL ISIAH's players.

THAT's where IT should have been shooting to be under the cap.

How many teams are under the cap as we speak? And I don't think anyone would have accepted Charlie Ward and the gang walking around the Garden until their contrats expired. Who would watch that?

Losing is losing. Does it matter if its Weatherspoon or Jerome James? The record is about the same, only we'd have draft picks and cap room.

BTW, Marbury will be 36 that year and Larry Brown will be long gone, but Jerome James might still be here. So if Isiah was looking 8 years down the line, why trade for Marbury in the first place.

Your logic in this statment eludes me.

The only thing off is my math. Marbury will be 33. I was responding to the quote that this was all about 5 tears down the line. That would be year 8 into Isiah's "grand plan". Why get Marbury if you're not going to be ready to contend until his twilight years? Why get Brown who's only going to be around 3 years MAX? Capice?

Isiah's tenure has been full of hasty moves, and wasted money.I liked the Marbury move. The rest outside of the draft has been questionable at best.

So the Curry move was not a good move? I believe you are just venting at this point and it seems to me you just have a problem with Isiah other then his moves. How is drafting three rookies and having two twenty year olds from the 2nd rd hasty? The Mo T trade is starting to make people look like fools and Jamal is going from chucker to playmaker. Last but not least we have the best teacher in the game for a relativly young roster. Don't take any of this personal it's just my humble opnion.

[/quote]

Once again, if you're going to quote me and respond, read what I said first. The Curry move has the potential to backfire on us in a big bad way. Not only is it questionable that he'll live up to his "potential", Sweetney has actually been slightly better so far. We may have given the Bullls the 1st overall pick this year (4-game streak notwithstanding), but, we're looking at a nervous year with regards to the draft NEXT year as well.

I also said "outside of the draft" Isiah's moves have been hasty (Thomas trade, signing James....). Read what I said. If this whole thing has been about "5 years from NOW" (year 8) Isiah), then why get James? Why get Rose? Why get Taylor? They were moves because he cant sit still. And this team could have been under the cap by next year, instead, we're at half the cap in 5 years for 5 players, and thats IF we let Ariza and Marbury walk, and BEFORE you calculate Curry's salary. That's not a plan.

I dont take any post personally. Feel free to challenge whatver I say. That's what a forum's for. I'm not always right, and if you argue right, you can get me to change my opinion. How bout that? Here's to ya. And here's to the KNICKS!