Nets have always been slick in going after and getting guys they want. From what i've read as soon as Kidd deal gets official the other 2 trades will happen quickly.

why are other teams so good at quick rebuilds while we're so horrible?

one trade I would be okay with Zeke making is a move to get JOneal.

I've always wanted Mike Miller on the Knicks. sigh, maybe I'll just become a nets fan.

Posted by GKFv2:

Well we don't need a quick rebuild anyway but it's funny how Miami rebuilt, traded for Shaq, won the title, and is now rebuilding again and all this time we're going around in circles.

that's what i mean - i don't WANT a quick rebuild, i'd take a traditional one or a plan of any kind, BUT other teams seem to be able to target players so easily and make that one big trade that's based on foresight rather than a wing and a prayer that mcdyess' knee will hold up or zach will become a team player or curry will learn how to play or coming to ny is what marbury always needed, etc.

it just seems that even in the quick, on the fly rebuild we're always making the absolute worst choices. ugh.

We have been under a curse eversince we traded Ewing???????

Isiah could have just held onto francis and moved him with frye for O'Neal at the deadline which would have made a lot more sense in the long run, but the ****er panics, because he is an idiot with no sense of how to execute a deal.

Posted by tkf:

The key is having tradeable pieces. Kid and oneal are HOF players who still have gas in the tank.. what do we have to trade ?

if we trade Zach for JO, we're morons, & yet if Rod Thorn trades Vince for JO, he's a genius... the logic around here never ceases to amaze me.

(yes, i know True, the Pacers aren't likely to want Zach, i get it... that's not the point here)

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by TMS:

Posted by tkf:

The key is having tradeable pieces. Kid and oneal are HOF players who still have gas in the tank.. what do we have to trade ?

if we trade Zach for JO, we're morons, & yet if Rod Thorn trades Vince for JO, he's a genius... the logic around here never ceases to amaze me.

(yes, i know True, the Pacers aren't likely to want Zach, i get it... that's not the point here)

It's a little different when we as fans have seen the same repetitive trades not work time after time. At least the Nets make the playoffs when Thorn makes trades. You also have to factor in the overall make-up of team, Cap situation, and personnel options. NJ doesn't even have to trade Kidd in both trade scenarios and I like a Kidd, Jefferson, Miller, J.O., Kristic line-up far and away better than any line-up we could put together with J.O. here. I never spoke in any depth trading for Miller. We also never discussed whether I SAY UGH had such trade combinations/multiple trades on the table, meanwhile N.J. appears to be. We discussed these trades as separate most of the time. Now if there's a scenario where we could trade for J.O., Miller, and Artest sure I'd be open to it at least. Trading J.O. straight for Zach is impossible anyway it doesn't meet the CBA agreement so why even entertain such a scenario? It's fantasy. I like to talk about real life/realistic situations. Trading just for J.O. is moronic, trading just for Miller is moronic, trading just for Artest is moronic. Trading for J.O. and taking on Tinsley's contract is maddening, Trading for Miller and taking on Cardinal's contract is maddening, Trading for Artest and taking on Kenny Thomas' contract is maddening and those are the premises from which arguments are based because they are the more realistic scenarios.

N.J. has more upside if they make such a trade than we do because they have more compatible pieces on their team.



[Edited by - TrueBlue on 02-15-2008 10:05 PM]

i along w/a few others have suggested trades for Miller, Artest and JO & they consistently get shot down by you & many others... a trade is a trade, doesn't make a difference if it's Rod Thorn making the deal or someone else... judge the merits of the trade based on how it makes sense for the franchises that are making it... & who here ever said it would have been a straight up Zach for JO trade? anyone who understands the cap rules knows there would be filler involved... i would think that would go without saying.

i already told u any trade for JO would likely involve taking back Tinsley's contract & that changed things completely, but the argument wasn't even about that... trade proposal was shot down because people felt JO was washed up & not even worth trading for... meanwhile Rod Thorn's name gets mentioned & all of a sudden it makes sense... i understand that he's made some very smart trades in the past so he carries cache, but a trade idea is a trade idea regardless... a little consistency is all i ask.

about the point u bring up about Jason Kidd's presence being the glue that makes all those other moves viable for the Nets, i agree w/u... but then again say for argument's sake the Knicks could make all those moves for those players, even if they had to take on the contracts of a Tinsley & Kenny Thomas, what would we have?

- Zach, Craw & Turd for J.O. & Tinsley (much better for Indy than a Vince for JO trade & they get more cap relief to boot)
- Malik, Chandler, Morris & a 2nd round pick for Miller (much better for MEM than a Magloire/Boki/filler package)
- Curry, Balk, Nate, Jones & cash for Artest, KT & Justin Williams (probably the best package SAC can get from any team for Artest considering all the other factors)
- OR Marbury, Balk & Nate for Artest, KT, Rahim & Justin Williams (gives SAC a lot of cap relief after next season & brings in a defensive player we sorely need at the SF position, while not putting us any deeper in longterm cap hell since we're capped out anyway til 2010 at the bare minimum)

the only players coming in on all 3 of those deals who have contracts that last past 2010 is Tinsley, but we still get cap relief because we're also getting rid of the last year on Zach's contract which expires the same year... meanwhile, we would have upgraded our shotblocking, defense, perimeter shooting & acquired a natural PG.

there are moves that can be made w/our roster that can actually address needs & improve us overall, contrary to the ongoing popular opinion around here... the problem is so many of you are so jaded to anything & everything that Isiah does that any & all trade proposals are shot down without even considering how they may make sense for our franchise... u gotta detach urselves from the constant negativity & anti-Isiah sentiment & look at the big picture... wouldn't u all rather see the following roster over what we have right now?

C - J.O. / either Curry or Williams (depending on which trade u make w/SAC)
PF - D Lee / KT / Rahim or Williams
SF - Artest / Jefferies
SG - Miller / Q Rich / Jones or Mardy
PG - Tinsley / Mardy

that team is built on defense & also has a nice balance of scorers both on the perimeter as well as in the paint w/lots of areas to expose mismatches in our favor on any given night... JO, Artest & Tinsley have played hard for Isiah before on a winning team so i have no doubts they would do the same for him if they were brought to NY... that team could actually make a run to make the playoffs this year & in the years to come & would be better off longterm cap wise as well after 2010... the biggest drawback is probably losing slots in the lottery if u made those moves... so u move down from the #5 pick to the #14 pick in the worst case scenario... i understand if people are against the trade ideas on those grounds, but u also have to have the same mentality towards the Nets if they make similar moves for those players... also, the Isiah haters would oppose those moves cuz it would mean Isiah's tenure here would be extended, even at the cost of winning games & watching some good basketball.

[Edited by - TMS on 02-16-2008 12:05 AM]