We've heard several arguments concerning these two topics. Anything from how did we/are we fair(ing) from the Curry trade to why we should/shouldn't trade for J.O.. What I find comical is this....


For those who think we faired well in the Curry trade(and there are many) we hear that giving up 2 unprotected 1rst round picks, 2 2nd round picks plus cap fodder Thomas, Sweetney, and Jackson for Curry and Antonio wasn't that big of deal because Curry is a low post presence you can build upon/around.

When discussing a potential J.O. trade we've seen several scenarios of what we think may have to get a deal done. Say for instance sending Lee, Frye or Balk, Francis, Malik and maybe even some kind of pick, wether it be a very low first rounder(severe protection) or some kind of second round pick for J.O. and possibly another contract(Tinsley). If J.O. were to be traded here one could say we could/would be building around him who is a legit All-Star caliber low post presence right?

Does anyone see where I'm going here?











Now from the guestimation in the J.O. trade, we'll hear a Lover say they don't think J.O. is worth all of the hassle. So let's break down these trades and compare them. Remember Curry trade fairly good/possibly got over on Chicago, potential J.O. trade not good and we might take it up the bung if we were to do so. We'd take a hit on potential salary cap flexibility 2 yrs down the road.

Trade 4 Trade

Receiving Main Piece
Curry<J.O.


Giving away/Receiving Cap Fodder
Francis, Malik, Tim Thomas, Sweetney, and Jackson=Antonio Davis, Tinsley,(this side may actually have the edge but let's just make it a wash)


Giving away Potential Young Prospects/Assets
2 unprotected 1rst round picks, 2 2nd round picks>Fye, Lee and and possibly a future heavily protected first or future 2nd round pick



The only difference I see between these trades is salary and let's remember also the Lovers say don't worry about that because "IT AIN'T OUR MONEY"


So in essence, trading for Curry=Good trading for J.O.=Bad


LOL!



[Edited by - TrueBlue on 05-11-2007 6:38 PM]

If the J.O deal actually went down. Do you really believe that a *Lover* would be knocking Isiah or the trade? Because I don't, I see the Lovers jumping for joy saying how we have the best frontcourt in the NBA with Curry & J.O. But I do see a split between the *Haters*. Some will embrace the trade. Some will knock the trade saying we gave up to much. Then the heat will turn to Marbury.

Posted by Anji:

Im lost.......... people are still answering these threads sriously????

It's not hard to figure out at all.

Posted by Anji:

It is very hard to figure out. On hand I have seen Surgar Ray on the RGM site saying he wants to pair Curry up with JO and Im guessing he is a "Curry Lover". But I myself am not against JO being a knick at all, I personally like Lee alot and believe we can't get JO without trading Lee. PLus I am fan of Curry, so I guess that makes me a "Curry Lover" too.

So I am very confused when I read this thread, because it makes zero sense. Ive never seen anybody put the trade in these terms but you. Usually it's a coversation of wanting to keep Lee verses a 28 year old JO & Curry front line . Don't really see the Lovers/Haters, but that just maybe me.



[Edited by - anji on 05-11-2007 5:17 PM]

That's the point I'm making, what you just said. If you look at what we gave up for Curry why are there so many Lovers hesitant/not willing to give essentially the same up and in some respect less to get J.O.?



[Edited by - TrueBlue on 05-11-2007 4:28 PM]

Posted by Anji:
THe answer is, LEE!!!!!!

Well said.

Interesting, too, that Isiah actually held Lee out of the Curry deal when Chicago asked for him. This is before he had blown up and become a fan favorite. So what does Isiah do now (assuming this deal is even on the table...)?

We can say things have changed now that we have Balkman and Jeffries, a bit of a glut at hustle-forward. But still JO has too many question marks attached and lee, we know, is quality. I'd stick with Lee for now, and no, I'm not sure Isiah would make the same decision.

So, does that make me a lover or a hater?

This is not a Lover vs. Hater issue. I think TrueBlue is reaching here. There's been no line drawn along those lines with this issue. I would like to stand pat and prepare for Cap Flexibility in 2 years. If we added JO, that would immediately boost the team, since he's obviously a real talent, however he is a risk. His age and lack of playing a full season in recent years are the reasons.

Now I know JO isn't exaclty over the hill, but he'll be 29 at the start of next season and I'm not sure how he'll hold up over the rest of his contract. He'll be making 19.7, 21.3 and 22.9 mil over the next 3 years. Isiah has be to CONFIDENT that adding JO would make this team a Title contender and be able to stay on the court or else don't make the deal.

[Edited by - nixluva on 05-11-2007 7:13 PM]

Posted by Anji:

Posted by Bonn1997:

So is Lee also better than having the lottery picks for the last two years (and four total picks)? If so, and if that means we have two players who are *each* better than four draft picks, then it's truly amazing we won only 33 games in such a weak division.

What??? Dealing with you guys is like talking to war Vets, the conversation always swirls down the drain to some war that's not even being fought. Yeah we know Grandpa, you don't like curry, but what the hell does that have to do with Lee and JO???

People are valuing Lee more than the four draft picks by saying they'd give up 4 draft picks for a low post player but wouldn't give up Lee for one. Get it? If you don't, then I can't help you.

Posted by nixluva:

This is not a Lover vs. Hater issue. I think TrueBlue is reaching here. There's been no line drawn along those lines with this issue. I would like to stand pat and prepare for Cap Flexibility in 2 years. If we added JO, that would immediately boost the team, since he's obviously a real talent, however he is a risk. His age and lack of playing a full season in recent years are the reasons.

Now I know JO isn't exaclty over the hill, but he'll be 29 at the start of next season and I'm not sure how he'll hold up over the rest of his contract. He'll be making 19.7, 21.3 and 22.9 mil over the next 3 years. Isiah has be to CONFIDENT that adding JO would make this team a Title contender and be able to stay on the court or else don't make the deal.

[Edited by - nixluva on 05-11-2007 7:13 PM]

LOL EY wasn't a risk at all when trading for him but J.O. is? If you defend the Curry trade simply put you're a Lover. If you defend that trade then you should support getting J.O. even if it means giving up a couple chippers. LOL @ not thinking J.O. will hold up the next 3yrs but sticking up for Marbury hanging in there the duration of his.

[Edited by - TrueBlue on 05-11-2007 6:54 PM]

A 100 word post about Curry Lovers verse Curry haters is the simple 123-ABC explanation. LOL, oh Lordy.





I would think explaining alot of knicks fans both Curry "Hater" & "Lover" not wanting to have to throw Lee into a Deal (Bonn if Lee equals a pick as discribed by the thread starter, then the other players also equal picks)to get JO would be alittle less advance then "Triple" Calculus. But that "No Child Left Behind" bill has left alot of schools under funded these days.



[Edited by - anji on 05-11-2007 8:14 PM]

I was merely laying out the plus and minus of any potential deal for JO. I'm not in favor of JO, MOSTLY due to the cap hit

Sorry but you can't be an Isiah supporter and be worried about the salary cap. That's just absurd

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by Bonn1997:

I was merely laying out the plus and minus of any potential deal for JO. I'm not in favor of JO, MOSTLY due to the cap hit

Sorry but you can't be an Isiah supporter and be worried about the salary cap. That's just absurd

More evidence of Inconsistency

OH PLEASE!!! GET REAL!!! As USUAL you guys are TOTALLY LOST!!! When it came to the Knicks everyone knows that we didn't have to worry about the cap so long as we had all those big long contracts still being paid off. NOW the thinking has to shift to meet the current situation. We've come to a point where our biggest contracts are up in 2 more years. WHY should we have worried about the cap back when we had no chance to get under until the big contracts ran out. At that time it made sense to go ahead and make deals regardless of the cost, since it wasn't going to change the fact that we were over the cap. So we made deals in an effort to improve the team. The thing is that we don't have any HUGE contracts after the end of 2008/09. We can make a deal for a bigtime FA at that time, so the situation is COMPLETELY different.

You guys are pathetic in your attempts to paint some of us as hypocrites or being out of touch. No one is stupid here. We all know how this works just the same as you do. No one was advocating spending like fools for all eternity. You worry about the cap when you have an honest chance to be substantially under it.
It's clear that there's been an effort to keep things within reason so that in 2009 we could make a play in the FA market. At that time the team will still have reasonable levels of youth and we can make a good 4-6 year run when the teams playeres should be at their peak.