no assets we have are tradeable until they become expiring or we take back a problem child. that's the pattern for every isiah trade.

no small tweak trades, just big time major $$$ deals.

we got zach for francis + fyre = how tradeable an asset do you think he is until he becomes expiring or we take back a player with 6 years left on his deal?

Posted by nixluva:

Posted by djsunyc:

no assets we have are tradeable until they become expiring or we take back a problem child. that's the pattern for every isiah trade.

no small tweak trades, just big time major $$$ deals.

we got zach for francis + fyre = how tradeable an asset do you think he is until he becomes expiring or we take back a player with 6 years left on his deal?

But isn't this trade different in that he actually picked up 2 expiring deals and Zach is young and very talented? In fact I expect that isiah will work to repair his image here and that would also make him a more tradeable asset should we want to use him in a trade. Not that I expect that, but I think he could be much more tradeable than Francis was. No matter how you look at it, this was a good trade for NY. The value was there and the risk as well, but Isiah is one of the few coaches that can make it work with Zach. This won't be his 1st time dealing with a guy like him.

being a good or bad trade is totally subjective. is it better than maybe buying out francis, and having an extra $16 mil in the summer of 2009?

it seems like the isiah aka "the hoover era" leaves all fans asking the question "i wonder why it didn't work?"

this moves follows a similar pattern to all of isiah's others. it just doesn't make sense. almost 100% of the people here thought we should get a defensive guy next to eddy...but we went and got his f'n doppleganger. huh?

[Edited by - djsunyc on 07-01-2007 11:26 AM]

Posted by djsunyc:

Posted by nixluva:

Posted by djsunyc:

no assets we have are tradeable until they become expiring or we take back a problem child. that's the pattern for every isiah trade.

no small tweak trades, just big time major $$$ deals.

we got zach for francis + fyre = how tradeable an asset do you think he is until he becomes expiring or we take back a player with 6 years left on his deal?

But isn't this trade different in that he actually picked up 2 expiring deals and Zach is young and very talented? In fact I expect that isiah will work to repair his image here and that would also make him a more tradeable asset should we want to use him in a trade. Not that I expect that, but I think he could be much more tradeable than Francis was. No matter how you look at it, this was a good trade for NY. The value was there and the risk as well, but Isiah is one of the few coaches that can make it work with Zach. This won't be his 1st time dealing with a guy like him.

being a good or bad trade is totally subjective. is it better than maybe buying out francis, and having an extra $16 mil in the summer of 2009?

it seems like the isiah aka "the hoover era" leaves all fans asking the question "i wonder why it didn't work?"

this moves follows a similar pattern to all of isiah's others. it just doesn't make sense. almost 100% of the people here thought we should get a defensive guy next to eddy...but we went and got his f'n doppleganger. huh?

[Edited by - djsunyc on 07-01-2007 11:26 AM]

I think that most people would've liked to get a PF who could score AND defend next to Curry. You put a guy that basically just blocks shots next to Curry and he still get's doubled. With Zach I doubt that teams will use his man to double. At least not so early in the possession like they did this year. No one respected our PF's and when Curry went out of the game we had nothing inside. That all changes with Zach.

I really think that the idea of a shotblocker is nice and I would've loved to add Sean Williams, but in the end it's only one facet of the game and we have a lot of the other facets covered quite nicely now. There's still the chance that Curry and Zach will be convinced to be more aggressive at detering shots. It's not like they can't block shots. It's an effort and focus thing. Curry has certainly done it more in the past. We'll see. My main point is that this move does make us better, just not in the way many would like, but to ignore the impact that adding him will have on this team is just not right. This can be a team that makes it deep into the playoffs even without a shotblocker. But who knows if Isiah doesn't get one or if perhaps Morris doesn't provide some of that down the line.

Posted by TheGame:

Posted by djsunyc:

no assets we have are tradeable until they become expiring or we take back a problem child. that's the pattern for every isiah trade.

no small tweak trades, just big time major $$$ deals.

we got zach for francis + fyre = how tradeable an asset do you think he is until he becomes expiring or we take back a player with 6 years left on his deal?

You think a team like Chicago would not love to get Zack. We could trade him to them for Noah, Tyrus Thomas, and P.J. Brown (on a expiring deal) right now without a doubt. You put Hinrich, Gordon, Nocinis (?), Randolph, and Wallace on the same team and you have a title contender. There are at least 6 teams (Miami, Dallas, New Jersey, Orlando, Houston, and the Bucks to name a few) that could really use a low post scorer like Randolph. You guys don't realize it, but IT got Randolph really cheap and I think we realistically can trade him for more than we gave up, which was essentially Frye.

if that's what the bulls were offering, then he would be a bull. i think it's a flawed philosphy to keep recycling these players in the HOPE that we can finally trade for a franchise guy. and it's apparent, that we're not there yet (even many thought we were).

Posted by EwingsGlass:

Posted by djsunyc:

Posted by TheGame:

Posted by djsunyc:

no assets we have are tradeable until they become expiring or we take back a problem child. that's the pattern for every isiah trade.

no small tweak trades, just big time major $$$ deals.

we got zach for francis + fyre = how tradeable an asset do you think he is until he becomes expiring or we take back a player with 6 years left on his deal?

You think a team like Chicago would not love to get Zack. We could trade him to them for Noah, Tyrus Thomas, and P.J. Brown (on a expiring deal) right now without a doubt. You put Hinrich, Gordon, Nocinis (?), Randolph, and Wallace on the same team and you have a title contender. There are at least 6 teams (Miami, Dallas, New Jersey, Orlando, Houston, and the Bucks to name a few) that could really use a low post scorer like Randolph. You guys don't realize it, but IT got Randolph really cheap and I think we realistically can trade him for more than we gave up, which was essentially Frye.

if that's what the bulls were offering, then he would be a bull. i think it's a flawed philosphy to keep recycling these players in the HOPE that we can finally trade for a franchise guy. and it's apparent, that we're not there yet (even many thought we were).

I'm with DJ on this one... only place I differ is that the Bulls did not want to jeopardize their chances of getting Kobe. Once that ship sails, they might look for an offensive juggernaut like Randolph. In either case, they aren't giving up Ty Thomas and Noah for Randolph, I mean, you'd have to be an idiot to trade those two guys for an overpaid big man that doesn't play defense
[

I disagree. We throw in maybe Morris and Chicago gives us a second round pick back and I think it is a done deal.

Thats a bit of a different deal. Morris "may" have been a lottery pick. So Randolph and Morris for Thomas, Noah and filler? I agree Chicago would do that. Why would we? I don't want to overvalue Morris, but I don't consider him a throw in regardless of how we came to acquire him, draft, FA or otherwise.

Posted by kam77:

Name ONE free agent superstar to change team due to FREE AGENCY and WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP lately (aside from Shaq to LA?).

there arent any examples. the closest thing was when Chauncey was signed to the MidLevel exception a few years back. and everyone gets to use that.

I can't really name the last "superstar" to get signed through free agency. I mean, I may agree with you, except that Shaq to LA is a "huge" exception, big enough to drive a truck through... look at the past champions since 1989...

2007 Spurs
2006 Heat
2005 Spurs
2004 Pistons
2003 Spurs
2002 Lakers
2001 Lakers
2000 Lakers
1999 Spurs
1998 Bulls
1997 Bulls
1996 Bulls
1995 Rockets
1994 Rockets
1993 Bulls
1992 Bulls
1991 Bulls
1990 Pistons
1989 Pistons

Teams that win are built and become dynasties in the NBA. It takes several years to build the team and the "team" grows cohesively during that time. The key to the championship teams is not a lot of turnover and well, typically a sparkplug star that can dominate the game. It is no coincidence that the same teams seem to be in the conference finals and the NBA finals every year. Those teams also had all star or quality veterans flock to their teams to fill in the gaps. Look at the Spurs with Michael Finley and Robert Horry. The Pistons with Webber, Rashweed, McDyess either forcing trades or signing vet contracts (irrespective of their post-signing successes), the Heat with Eddie Jones, Zo Mourning, Toine, GPayton. Hell, all you need to do is get a core group of players that others think can win and quality players flock to that team. IT murmured something along those lines when he said that you need to have players that other stars want to play with. Its difficult to sign a superstar and then win because you probably do not have the core pieces to win if you have the cap space to sign the superstar. I guess I agree. Most teams draft the superstar and sign the core players.

to get eddy, this dominant low post center, isiah gave up 2 lotto picks and 2 2nd rounders and alot of people defended it. arguments were used that these type of players are not easy to get and you would give up 2 picks any time for him.

meanwhile, 2 years later, we get a low post player BETTER than eddy and we got him for francis + frye.

it's funny how things play out.

[Edited by - djsunyc on 07-01-2007 12:37 PM]

Posted by bigbeast:

Posted by djsunyc:

Posted by TheGame:

Posted by djsunyc:

no assets we have are tradeable until they become expiring or we take back a problem child. that's the pattern for every isiah trade.

no small tweak trades, just big time major $$$ deals.

we got zach for francis + fyre = how tradeable an asset do you think he is until he becomes expiring or we take back a player with 6 years left on his deal?

You think a team like Chicago would not love to get Zack. We could trade him to them for Noah, Tyrus Thomas, and P.J. Brown (on a expiring deal) right now without a doubt. You put Hinrich, Gordon, Nocinis (?), Randolph, and Wallace on the same team and you have a title contender. There are at least 6 teams (Miami, Dallas, New Jersey, Orlando, Houston, and the Bucks to name a few) that could really use a low post scorer like Randolph. You guys don't realize it, but IT got Randolph really cheap and I think we realistically can trade him for more than we gave up, which was essentially Frye.

if that's what the bulls were offering, then he would be a bull. i think it's a flawed philosphy to keep recycling these players in the HOPE that we can finally trade for a franchise guy. and it's apparent, that we're not there yet (even many thought we were).

Flawed it may be, but it is a plan. From day one, all Isiah has talked about was aquiring assets (expiring contracts and skilled players). I agree that this philosphy doesn't have any regard for team chemistry or proper balance. But he seems to be trying to steal wins and keep the team afloat, while he continues to aquire enough assets to make that big push for a superstar talent.

I think Isiah is as close as he's ever been to doing so and he's best chance will come up next year when Marb, Rose become assets because of thier expiring contracts, and Zach being a tradeable commodity because of his low post prowess. Agian, I'm not totally endorsing this plan/philosphy, but next year is the year where everything can come togther for him or fall apart.

but he's failing his plan. even mchale and billy knight and layden have/had "plans". so how does one figure out if the plan is a good one or not?

at some point wins have to matter. some fans are on different time tables, that's all.

imho, we are *this* close to becoming the portland jailblazers (not in terms of off court trouble but in terms of on court clusterfcuk).