for

Harrington
Randolph
Belinelli

Do the trade.

Marbury is the point guard that Nellie and his boy Jackson wants. If the Knicks have the roster space they could have made that move but they don't so that why no deal can even be discuss.

Posted by Pharzeone:

Marbury is the point guard that Nellie and his boy Jackson wants. If the Knicks have the roster space they could have made that move but they don't so that why no deal can even be discuss.

I see two realistic scenarios with Golden State here -

(1) Opportunity to get rid of Marbury for Harrington, the money they still have on the cap for Adonal Foyle, Marcus Williams, Belinelli and God knows what else to make it work money-wise. You dump Marbury for a lot of stuff GS isn't that high on but you're not getting Randolph. Buyouts and waiving players would have to factor in though, something the Knicks seem dead set against. Hey at least they dump Marbury. A possibility but unlikely.

- OR -

(2) A scenario like Briggs' here, which I like very much btw. It's really a trade that makes a good deal of sense for both clubs. They get rid of Harrington and Belinelli, two guys they don't want and get Lee, a guy they like very much. Craw comes in and plays 40 mins. at the 1 and 2 and makes up for Ellis' lost offense in the backcourt. They might not be too crazy about two things though - (a) giving up on Anthony Randolph. But you figure the Knicks would need something to hang their hat on in the deal plus Brandan Wright has been playing well for them lately anyway, Randolph's not even playing - they're pretty much the same type of player) --- so maybe on second thought that might not hold up anything and (b) the amount of years/money left on Crawford's deal (this year +2 more at about $28 mil.). Now let me ask you, if a or b became a sticking point for GS - how much further would you be prepared to go? Our 2nd rounder next draft? Say that's still not enough. Our 2011 1st rounder? Gallinari or dare I say Chandler (Eny's right, something would have to give here)? Where would you draw the line if you were the Knicks? Guess it depends how much you like and want Randolph, who is, let's be honest, the jewel of the original deal here. I'd come aggressive with Briggs' proposal first but wouldn't necessarily be against sweetening it up a little if need be. How far I'd be willing to go I'm not sure. What do you think?


[Edited by - finestrg on 11-06-2008 9:32 PM]

Posted by Uptown:

Posted by Finestrg:

Posted by Pharzeone:

Marbury is the point guard that Nellie and his boy Jackson wants. If the Knicks have the roster space they could have made that move but they don't so that why no deal can even be discuss.

I see two realistic scenarios with Golden State here -

(1) Opportunity to get rid of Marbury for Harrington, the money they still have on the cap for Adonal Foyle, Marcus Williams, Belinelli and God knows what else to make it work money-wise. You dump Marbury for a lot of stuff GS isn't that high on but you're not getting Randolph. Buyouts and waiving players would have to factor in though, something the Knicks seem dead set against. Hey at least they dump Marbury. A possibility but unlikely.

- OR -

(2) A scenario like Briggs' here, which I like very much btw. It's really a trade that makes a good deal of sense for both clubs. They get rid of Harrington and Belinelli, two guys they don't want and get Lee, a guy they like very much. Craw comes in and plays 40 mins. at the 1 and 2 and makes up for Ellis' lost offense in the backcourt. They might not be too crazy about two things though - (a) giving up on Anthony Randolph. But you figure the Knicks would need something to hang their hat on in the deal plus Brandan Wright has been playing well for them lately anyway, Randolph's not even playing - they're pretty much the same type of player) --- so maybe on second thought that might not hold up anything and (b) the amount of years/money left on Crawford's deal (this year +2 more at about $28 mil.). Now let me ask you, if a or b became a sticking point for GS - how much further would you be prepared to go? Our 2nd rounder next draft? Say that's still not enough. Our 2011 1st rounder? Gallinari or dare I say Chandler (Eny's right, something would have to give here)? Where would you draw the line if you were the Knicks? Guess it depends how much you like and want Randolph, who is, let's be honest, the jewel of the original deal here. I'd come aggressive with Briggs' proposal first but wouldn't necessarily be against sweetening it up a little if need be. How far I'd be willing to go I'm not sure. What do you think?


[Edited by - finestrg on 11-06-2008 9:32 PM]

I would definitely make this deal but as you say, I doubt GS includes Randolph in this deal. I thin they might replace him with Wright but I'd still do the deal. But as in the past, this deal makes too much sense to happen in reality.

I know right? LOL! When's the last deal we made that REALLY REALLY benefited us and was in our favor or at least fair for all teams involved? I can't even remember. It's a little bit that the Knicks front office has been completely inept for what seems like a decade now and also that most teams around the league are just so chicken **** to make a fair trade. So frustrating.........

[Edited by - finestrg on 11-06-2008 9:59 PM]

I'd do brigg's original deal. I don't know if I'd do the Brendan Wright version though. Anyway I doubt a deal like this goes down. If I had to guess Walsh's strategy is to let D'antoni tell him what kind of player to trade and trade for, and he'll do so in a fiscally sound manner. Not a great plan imo.

brandan wright highlight reel from last season