if we had had our own pick last year- we could have played this past season for strategic losses and been in the running for Oden or Durant

It's tough to rank. I guess I'd have to rank them this way:

Worst: Marbury -- because of the huge negative impact to the franchise.
Second worst: Curry -- because we gave up so much for a guy who doesn't even care about playing on 1/2 of the court.
Third worst: Nazr + TT -- TT was an absolute cancer who set this franchise back a full year on his own, while we traded two guys who were fitting the system better than you could've hoped. I have no doubt that if not for this stupid trade, KVH is still playing and the Knicks are an above .500 team.
Fourth: Mo Taylor -- expirings and a 2nd rounder for garbage? Terrible and terrible work ethic.


The best trade of this group is Crawford. Frank Williams was a key cog for us and we gave him up for Crawford. That alone is a good trade, still, but we gave up other pieces, took back an overpaid JYD who wasn't utilized right, and an overpaid Crawford. For what Crawford has contributed, I'd prefer to get under the cap... but at least this trade wasn't a complete disaster like the others.

you forgot to include penny + ariza for francis

As well as Nazr for Malik + the 2005 #30 pick and 2006 #29 pick

DUDE??? WTF

DAVID LEE, Mardy Collins....

how can you even bring that trade up.

Posted by kam77:

As well as Nazr for Malik + the 2005 #30 pick and 2006 #29 pick

DUDE??? WTF

DAVID LEE, Mardy Collins....

how can you even bring that trade up.

I just explained it. See above. Those players could've been had, regardless of whether we made that trade or not.

Posted by MaTT4281:

Posted by Solace:

Posted by djsunyc:

you forgot to include penny + ariza for francis

As well as Nazr for Malik + the 2005 #30 pick and 2006 #29 pick, when we could've had the 2006 #32 pick if we given up in a pick when we traded for Mo Taylor we would've had the #32 in the same draft and likely still could've gotten Mardy Collins, and we could've taken Lee with the #21, instead of the useless Nate Robinson. So as far as I'm concerned, we traded Nazr Mohammed for Nate Robinson, awful trade.

Giving up that second rounder for Mo was retarded, but atleast call a trade for what it is. Nazr for Rose/Lee/Collins. You can play with hypotheticals all day if you'd like. As far as Lee at #21 - coulda, shoulda, woulda? We could have, we should have...but do you honestly believe we would have? You don't have the advantage of waiting 2 years and seeing how the players turn out when you make the pick. We can look back now and say we could have taken Lee before Frye. Ridiculous, but why not? Lee's turned out to be the better of the two.

Penny/Ariza for Francis was the worst IMO, but out of the choices, I went with the Mo deal. Soon to be expirings and a second rounder for an absolutely useless player. No matter how much you hate the other trades, you can atleast say you got SOME value back.

[Edited by - matt4281 on 06-09-2007 10:12 PM]

Gotta love that retort, I can't wait to pull that out when something comes to mind when finding out if a deal was turned down for such and such player. Like when people say....

"Man the Lakers were dumb not making that trade for Kidd, not giving up Bynum".

That's hypothetical and unknown as far as I'm concerned.



Solace is correct, almost every trade I SAY UGH has made has been Abysmal and the proof of course is in our record.

It's the same deal with the Curry trade. People love to throw Balkman into it, yet it's clear that we could've just as easily gotten the pick from Toronto for either Penny or TT.

Yes it is the basically the same deal. The only point I ever compare Balkman to Chicago is when comparing Renaldo and TT, but the Curry trade has nothing to do those comparisons. I'm sure other people do, and I don't agree with that either.

What you're saying is not entirely valid, except for the part of our organization potentially skipping on Lee in favor of Nate. So, then you're saying we're lucky... and if luck is the best part of the trade, how do you give credit for that?

There is always some degree of luck when it comes to the draft. Very rarely are there 'sure things' outside of the top picks, and even then there are surprises. You're arguement about keeping #32 instead of trading for #30 is valid, and I absolutely agree, but which trade is that a shot to? I've already given my opinion on the Mo trade, and that just further adds to my reasoning.

Besides, what does it say about a GM, when we took on three extra years of a useless player who doesn't fit our team and gave up a center who would probably fit our team better than the current one, in order to get two picks, one of which was 100% negated by the fact that we gave up a pick only three slots later, for more garbage. So if you're saying Nazr for Lee is a good trade, I again, contend, that us getting Nazr didn't prohibit us from getting Lee. We took two useless players before him. With the picks we had in the draft, we should've done a lot better than we did.

At no point did I attempt to defend Isiah's 'plan' or lackthereof. The two trades did infact negate eachother. Ideally, you don't make either trade, but that's irrelevant now. The Nazr trade atleast did offer some consolation for the garbage sack that is Mo Taylor. I think you seriously over rate Nazr. The ball was gift wrapped to him 2 feet away from the basket by Steph time and time again. Even then, he'd blow attempt after attempt trying to convert, collecting a couple offensive rebounds to the box score along the way. You can easily take this and take digs at Eddy if you'd like, I don't care. That's another debate for another time.

The only point I have tried to make was to call a spade a spade.

Anyway, how about the Keith Van Horn trade? Let alone the fact that we got Nazr, but we could've gotten Nazr and kept Van Horn. The best part of that would've been no Tim Thomas. That, again, is ineptitude and deserves no credit.

Which pick did we send to Atlanta in that trade? That would have been nice to have as well.

[Edited by - matt4281 on 06-10-2007 01:12 AM]

Granted, the Mo Taylor trade didn't work, but we only gave up a 2nd and some unimportant players.

starbury has been the most disruptive. He's the one who caused Brown's firing (with pay in millions) and Thomas's being in the dog house since. And wee're still stuck with starbury's contract. Oh' and least we forget 'he asked for an extension'? Gosh damn! Just plain stupid and anyone who agrees with it.

KVH for Nazr/TT hurt because it broke up the only time we've played well in like 6 years now.