[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

If the Clippers wanted a future first rounder to take Zach off our hands, why didn't Walsh counter
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
franco12
Posts: 34069
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 2/19/2004
Member: #599
USA
7/30/2008  8:17 AM
With Balkman?

Granted, his trade value is shown to be a 2nd rounder, if that.

So counter with Zach & Balkan in return for Brevin Knight?

Savings? Huge!

Change in Culture? Huge!

Setting the stage for 2010? Huge!

Ability to improve Curry's value? Huge!

I guess hindsight is 20/20.
AUTOADVERT
Uptown
Posts: 31375
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 4/1/2008
Member: #1883
7/30/2008  9:24 AM
How do you know he didn't? Look there is a lot that goes on behind the scenes that we know nothing about. It seems as is Walsh wants Zach gone about as much as we all do, so I'm sure he is/did explore other opitons with the Clips and any other team that he might approach about moving Zach.
Nalod
Posts: 72113
Alba Posts: 155
Joined: 12/24/2003
Member: #508
USA
7/30/2008  9:47 AM
we as fans make way too many assumptions as to what is offered and what our plan is.

On paper it seems like Artest was traded really on the cheap.
martin
Posts: 80037
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
7/30/2008  9:49 AM
If you where the Clips, who would you rather have?

2 years of Camby at $8M per or 3 years of Zach at $16M per (and Balk at an additional $1M)?



Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
7/30/2008  9:55 AM
Posted by martin:

If you where the Clips, who would you rather have?

2 years of Camby at $8M per or 3 years of Zach at $16M per (and Balk at an additional $1M)?

I'd rather have Camby than have Zach at $16M per and a future NYK first rounder but the sequence appears to be that they went to us first asking for that and the Nuggets second.
EnySpree
Posts: 44919
Alba Posts: 138
Joined: 4/18/2003
Member: #397
7/30/2008  10:04 AM
Donnie probably told the Clips to kick rocks, or Donnie could of been too cautious and Clips hung up the phone.

We don't know. It does seem like Donnie missed the boat @ first, but if they wanted Zach and a 1st rounder? Forget them, the Knicks would do well keeping Zach that caving in on some bull**** like that.
Subscribe to my Podcast https://youtube.com/c/DiehardknicksPodcast https://twitter.com/DiehardknicksPC https://instagram.com/diehardknickspodcast
joec32033
Posts: 30632
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 2/3/2004
Member: #583
USA
7/30/2008  10:07 AM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by martin:

If you where the Clips, who would you rather have?

2 years of Camby at $8M per or 3 years of Zach at $16M per (and Balk at an additional $1M)?

I'd rather have Camby than have Zach at $16M per and a future NYK first rounder but the sequence appears to be that they went to us first asking for that and the Nuggets second.
What if the Clips had the Camby deal in place and came to us to see how desperate we were to move Zach and when we would not give up a first they decided Zach wasn't worth it to them if they could just steal Camby?
.
~You can't run from who you are.~
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
7/30/2008  10:11 AM
knicks don't have a 2010 #1 draft pick. i don't think they could've legally traded the 2009 or 2011 pick to the clippers without acquiring another one first. that's why i don't believe that rumor.
VDesai
Posts: 43301
Alba Posts: 44
Joined: 10/28/2003
Member: #477
USA
7/30/2008  10:15 AM
Posted by djsunyc:

knicks don't have a 2010 #1 draft pick. i don't think they could've legally traded the 2009 or 2011 pick to the clippers without acquiring another one first. that's why i don't believe that rumor.

They could've made it a conditional 1 with a 3-4 year window to get by that rule if needed.
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
7/30/2008  10:17 AM
Posted by VDesai:
Posted by djsunyc:

knicks don't have a 2010 #1 draft pick. i don't think they could've legally traded the 2009 or 2011 pick to the clippers without acquiring another one first. that's why i don't believe that rumor.

They could've made it a conditional 1 with a 3-4 year window to get by that rule if needed.

another reason why i don't buy it. i think it was just dunleavy doing his due dilligence one very potential big man available and passed on randolph. whatever the case, the zach randolph gift is just the gift that keeps on giving...
martin
Posts: 80037
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
7/30/2008  10:40 AM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by martin:

If you where the Clips, who would you rather have?

2 years of Camby at $8M per or 3 years of Zach at $16M per (and Balk at an additional $1M)?

I'd rather have Camby than have Zach at $16M per and a future NYK first rounder but the sequence appears to be that they went to us first asking for that and the Nuggets second.

and that makes a difference because....?
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
7/30/2008  11:23 AM
Posted by martin:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by martin:

If you where the Clips, who would you rather have?

2 years of Camby at $8M per or 3 years of Zach at $16M per (and Balk at an additional $1M)?

I'd rather have Camby than have Zach at $16M per and a future NYK first rounder but the sequence appears to be that they went to us first asking for that and the Nuggets second.

and that makes a difference because....?

because you were talking about what the Clips would rather have. The sequence suggests they value Zach more than you realize.
martin
Posts: 80037
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
7/30/2008  11:44 AM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by martin:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by martin:

If you where the Clips, who would you rather have?

2 years of Camby at $8M per or 3 years of Zach at $16M per (and Balk at an additional $1M)?

I'd rather have Camby than have Zach at $16M per and a future NYK first rounder but the sequence appears to be that they went to us first asking for that and the Nuggets second.

and that makes a difference because....?

because you were talking about what the Clips would rather have. The sequence suggests they value Zach more than you realize.

the only thing the sequence suggests is that the media found out about the Zbo talks before the Camby talks.

If LAC wanted and valued Zach more than Camby, they could have not demanded a first rounder, not demanded the Knicks take Brevin, and offered up a second round pick or whatever.
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
7/30/2008  11:19 PM
now hear this... no one wants any part of Zach's contract... repeat, no one wants any part of Zach's contract... please understand there are no viable trade options out there at the present time for us to unload him... if there were he would have been gone already.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
franco12
Posts: 34069
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 2/19/2004
Member: #599
USA
7/30/2008  11:21 PM
Posted by TMS:

now hear this... no one wants any part of Zach's contract... repeat, no one wants any part of Zach's contract... please understand there are no viable trade options out there at the present time for us to unload him... if there were he would have been gone already.

that has been my sig for a while.
JohnWallace44
Posts: 25119
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 6/14/2005
Member: #910
USA
8/1/2008  12:32 PM
The only way to trade a lot of these guys is to increase their value during the season.

Might be a painful first half of the year.
Alan Hahn: Nate Robinson has been on a ridonkulous scoring tear lately (remember when he couldn't hit Jerome James with a Big Mac in early January?)
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
8/1/2008  12:53 PM
We really don't know that Walsh can't move Zach. He may have offers that he's willing to wait on before he makes his final decision. As it is, we're not really in a rush at this point. If we keep him that will only make him more attractive since his contract will decrease one more year. It's all about timing and patience. We don't have to make any rash moves. We all know that the target date is 2010 and we've got time to restructure this thing and get under the cap on our own terms.
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
8/2/2008  3:02 AM
Posted by nixluva:

We really don't know that Walsh can't move Zach. He may have offers that he's willing to wait on before he makes his final decision. As it is, we're not really in a rush at this point. If we keep him that will only make him more attractive since his contract will decrease one more year. It's all about timing and patience. We don't have to make any rash moves. We all know that the target date is 2010 and we've got time to restructure this thing and get under the cap on our own terms.

yeah, i'm sure he's mulling over the tons of calls he's getting for Zach's services where teams are just dying to give up 1st round picks & expirings for him... come on, of course we know Walsh can't move Zach right now... he came in w/the distinct goal of freeing up cap for the 2010 season... that was his single most important stated goal & mission statement... just because he's not crazy about the crap offers he's been getting for Zach up to this point doesn't mean the guy has any trade value... yeah, we can wait & hope that he increases his trade value over the season w/some good, solid play... if that's what Walsh has decided to do i hope it works out for us in the long run... if there's a straight salary dump type deal out there to be had for Zach's contract i have to think Walsh would have accepted the deal by now... i can understand him being reluctant to give up a 1st round pick to unload his contract tho.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
« Reply To Topic
If the Clippers wanted a future first rounder to take Zach off our hands, why didn't Walsh counter
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy