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

How about this trade with Washington
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 1 of 2  1  2 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
3/5/2009  4:32 PM
Pick 9 2009 draft[this year] Resigned Nate Robinson 6 years 42mm$ and Jared Jefferies

for Javale Mcgee Mike James and Etan Thomas[the latter two are expring


That gets rid of Jefferies payroll in 2010 and we get Mcgee who we can slot in at 5.


Wash gets a lottery pick the likely 6th man of the year and Jefferies who still has a short contract and played well there.

[Edited by - BRIGGS on 03-05-2009 4:35 PM]
RIP Crushalot😞
AUTOADVERT
NYKBocker
Posts: 38511
Alba Posts: 474
Joined: 1/14/2003
Member: #377
USA
3/5/2009  4:33 PM
I don't think we own our 2010 pick.
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
3/5/2009  4:35 PM
ur such a damn hypocrite... u rag on me for suggesting we trade Nate at the deadline for a mid 1st round pick & then u suggest something like this where we not only give up Nate, but also our lottery pick this year, for freakin' Javale McGee... gimme a break dude... have u no shame?
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
3/5/2009  4:47 PM
Posted by TMS:

ur such a damn hypocrite... u rag on me for suggesting we trade Nate at the deadline for a mid 1st round pick & then u suggest something like this where we not only give up Nate, but also our lottery pick this year, for freakin' Javale McGee... gimme a break dude... have u no shame?

I think Mcgee is much better than anyone we can possibly get at 9. To get am athletic 7 footer who had some very nice moments in the NBA his first season and get rid of Jefferies 7mm is very attractive. I don't want to trade Nate for a 14 pick like you. How does this trade suggest that in anyway? This draft is not very good. This is trading OUT.
RIP Crushalot😞
sebstar
Posts: 25698
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 6/2/2002
Member: #249
USA
3/5/2009  4:51 PM
I agree with TMS, thats way too much to give up just to get rid of Jefferies.

McGhee is alright. He's not a franchise changer or anything. Trade Denied.
My saliva and spit can split thread into fiber and bits/ So trust me I'm as live as it gets. --Royce Da 5'9 + DJ Premier = Hip Hop Utopia
JohnWallace44
Posts: 25119
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 6/14/2005
Member: #910
USA
3/5/2009  5:04 PM
There's a trade to be had with Washington, but they can't take on another chucking guard can they?

I'd think that we'd do better offering them Lee.

If we could pry McGee or Blatche from them it would be nice.
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?)
daddynel
Posts: 21222
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 12/2/2003
Member: #505
3/5/2009  6:34 PM
i dont think it's a bad trade at all. either nate or lee has to go, that's the bottom line. nate's value will be sky high this summer, and we get fishlips out.
sebstar
Posts: 25698
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 6/2/2002
Member: #249
USA
3/5/2009  6:40 PM
Posted by daddynel:

i dont think it's a bad trade at all. either nate or lee has to go, that's the bottom line. nate's value will be sky high this summer, and we get fishlips out.

You have to guarantee me that we are getting two superstars because of this, because we lose assets and the trade makes us worse on paper.
My saliva and spit can split thread into fiber and bits/ So trust me I'm as live as it gets. --Royce Da 5'9 + DJ Premier = Hip Hop Utopia
Pharzeone
Posts: 32183
Alba Posts: 14
Joined: 2/11/2005
Member: #871
3/5/2009  6:48 PM
Posted by daddynel:

i dont think it's a bad trade at all. either nate or lee has to go, that's the bottom line. nate's value will be sky high this summer, and we get fishlips out.

You don't accept less because you are in sticky situation. Teams already know the Knicks situaiton with Nate and Lee and 2010 that's why they were trying to lowball Walsh at the trade deadline. You sell high for a reason. But agree with TMS, that's way too much for McGhee at this point where he hasn't been a lock to be something more than a prospect at this point.
I don't like to play bad rookies , I like to play good rookies - Mike D'Antoni
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
3/5/2009  8:58 PM
Posted by Pharzeone:
Posted by daddynel:

i dont think it's a bad trade at all. either nate or lee has to go, that's the bottom line. nate's value will be sky high this summer, and we get fishlips out.

You don't accept less because you are in sticky situation. Teams already know the Knicks situaiton with Nate and Lee and 2010 that's why they were trying to lowball Walsh at the trade deadline. You sell high for a reason. But agree with TMS, that's way too much for McGhee at this point where he hasn't been a lock to be something more than a prospect at this point.

Believe me--one day Mcgee will be a player we beg to have. There is NO one at 9 10 11 remotely close to Mcgee for our system in the frontcourt.

You're getting the 7mm in cap space + Mcgee for our pick and Nate. The trade is bad if you think there is a higher value player there at 9-10-11. The trade is good if you are high on Mcgee which I was last year and havent seen anything to change my mind. You can put Mcgee next to David Lee and I think he would flourish next year in Dantoni's system and bring us the shot blocking we crave. Remember how fast and athletic Mcgee is for a 7 footer but can also shoot the rock from mid range.
RIP Crushalot😞
sidsanders
Posts: 22541
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/17/2009
Member: #2426
3/5/2009  9:23 PM
Posted by JohnWallace44:

There's a trade to be had with Washington, but they can't take on another chucking guard can they?

I'd think that we'd do better offering them Lee.

If we could pry McGee or Blatche from them it would be nice.

pass on AB. he is looking like kwame brown minus the high draft status to me lately. some games he looks ok, others he doesnt show up.
GO TEAM VENTURE!!!!!
CrushAlot
Posts: 59764
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/25/2003
Member: #452
USA
3/5/2009  9:50 PM
McGee could be one of the steals of the draft. He has size and incredible athleticism. I read an article where he was compared to Dwight Howard (for what that is worth). I don't think Washington would trade him.
I'm tired,I'm tired, I'm so tired right now......Kristaps Porzingis 1/3/18
TheGame
Posts: 26651
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/15/2006
Member: #1154
USA
3/6/2009  6:17 AM
I think you can package Nate with Jeffries (Saco was willing to make that deal) without giving up our draft pick. I would rather do that and take a chance in the draft. I doubt Washington gives up McGee anyway.
Trust the Process
EwingsGlass
Posts: 27724
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 4/29/2005
Member: #893
USA
3/6/2009  9:43 AM
Basically I see this trade as our 2009 DP for Javale McGee... since you can't trade the DP until after pick is used, I would wait and see who you get...

Otherwise, I think packaging Nate with Jeffries (hopefully Curry instead) would be enough to dump Jeffries. I think it makes too much sense to ignore that-- but it really all depends on what it costs to keep Nate. If he comes in at $4 or $5m in 2010 salary, I am all for keeping him. If Lee comes in at $7M or $8m, I would keep him also. I just don't want to overpay for these guys and I think there will be a lot of bargains to be had by teams with capspace... giving Walsh some credit, I doubt the deal with SacTown was as straight-forward as suggested...
You know I gonna spin wit it
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
3/6/2009  9:47 AM
Posted by TheGame:

I think you can package Nate with Jeffries (Saco was willing to make that deal) without giving up our draft pick. I would rather do that and take a chance in the draft. I doubt Washington gives up McGee anyway.
That trade doesnt make much sense. Wash just resigned Arenas to big money. Why would they then commit to giving Nate a long term deal. They would be built around a pair of guards who are 5'8 and a 6'3 while giving up a bigman.

If I am Wash I just take the BPA, maybe Harden and go with him and Arenas with Blatch and McGee and those other big bodies up front. Thats a better formula than anything the Knicks can offer me. If anything I might trade the pick in a S&T for Lee and and give a guy like Artest the MLE. Go with Arenas and Artest with McGee, Blatch and Lee up front.

Wash doesnt want Nate...

"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
Andrew
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #1
USA
3/6/2009  9:51 AM
Yeah fish...does Washington want Nate....and does Nate want to go to Washington?
PURE KNICKS LOVE
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
3/6/2009  10:02 AM
Posted by EwingsGlass:

Basically I see this trade as our 2009 DP for Javale McGee... since you can't trade the DP until after pick is used, I would wait and see who you get...

Otherwise, I think packaging Nate with Jeffries (hopefully Curry instead) would be enough to dump Jeffries. I think it makes too much sense to ignore that-- but it really all depends on what it costs to keep Nate. If he comes in at $4 or $5m in 2010 salary, I am all for keeping him. If Lee comes in at $7M or $8m, I would keep him also. I just don't want to overpay for these guys and I think there will be a lot of bargains to be had by teams with capspace... giving Walsh some credit, I doubt the deal with SacTown was as straight-forward as suggested...

Pretty much accurate. Mcgee and cap room. I don't see a prospect even close to Mcgee's potential at 9-10-11 in this draft. In terms of what the Wizards get---they get a sixth man of the year who is only 24 and an extra lottery pick. Nate Robinson and a lottery pick isnt swiss cheese. They are going to get a big time big with their top lottery choice. And if we win the lottery--all bets are off.

I would be willing to give the same deal to GS for Randolph and change Lee for Nate. Anthony Randolph and cap space in 2010 for Lee and lottery pick but we would need a third team there.
RIP Crushalot😞
EwingsGlass
Posts: 27724
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 4/29/2005
Member: #893
USA
3/6/2009  10:24 AM
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by EwingsGlass:

Basically I see this trade as our 2009 DP for Javale McGee... since you can't trade the DP until after pick is used, I would wait and see who you get...

Otherwise, I think packaging Nate with Jeffries (hopefully Curry instead) would be enough to dump Jeffries. I think it makes too much sense to ignore that-- but it really all depends on what it costs to keep Nate. If he comes in at $4 or $5m in 2010 salary, I am all for keeping him. If Lee comes in at $7M or $8m, I would keep him also. I just don't want to overpay for these guys and I think there will be a lot of bargains to be had by teams with capspace... giving Walsh some credit, I doubt the deal with SacTown was as straight-forward as suggested...

Pretty much accurate. Mcgee and cap room. I don't see a prospect even close to Mcgee's potential at 9-10-11 in this draft. In terms of what the Wizards get---they get a sixth man of the year who is only 24 and an extra lottery pick. Nate Robinson and a lottery pick isnt swiss cheese. They are going to get a big time big with their top lottery choice. And if we win the lottery--all bets are off.

I would be willing to give the same deal to GS for Randolph and change Lee for Nate. Anthony Randolph and cap space in 2010 for Lee and lottery pick but we would need a third team there.

I notice that you keep trying to draft or trade for players with big upside potential-- I would think with this draft it might be important to get a player, someone who is more of a known quantity (and quality)... a guy like Greg Monroe seems more like a set quantity player than either Mcgee, Randolph or even Thabeet... in all of those cases, you are hoping they fill out and yet maintain the same athleticism... I would lean against the Randolph and McGees in terms of trading draft picks for them because we are going to need real players, not just projects, in order to compete in 2009 and 2010.
You know I gonna spin wit it
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
3/6/2009  10:42 AM
Posted by EwingsGlass:
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by EwingsGlass:

Basically I see this trade as our 2009 DP for Javale McGee... since you can't trade the DP until after pick is used, I would wait and see who you get...

Otherwise, I think packaging Nate with Jeffries (hopefully Curry instead) would be enough to dump Jeffries. I think it makes too much sense to ignore that-- but it really all depends on what it costs to keep Nate. If he comes in at $4 or $5m in 2010 salary, I am all for keeping him. If Lee comes in at $7M or $8m, I would keep him also. I just don't want to overpay for these guys and I think there will be a lot of bargains to be had by teams with capspace... giving Walsh some credit, I doubt the deal with SacTown was as straight-forward as suggested...

Pretty much accurate. Mcgee and cap room. I don't see a prospect even close to Mcgee's potential at 9-10-11 in this draft. In terms of what the Wizards get---they get a sixth man of the year who is only 24 and an extra lottery pick. Nate Robinson and a lottery pick isnt swiss cheese. They are going to get a big time big with their top lottery choice. And if we win the lottery--all bets are off.

I would be willing to give the same deal to GS for Randolph and change Lee for Nate. Anthony Randolph and cap space in 2010 for Lee and lottery pick but we would need a third team there.

I notice that you keep trying to draft or trade for players with big upside potential-- I would think with this draft it might be important to get a player, someone who is more of a known quantity (and quality)... a guy like Greg Monroe seems more like a set quantity player than either Mcgee, Randolph or even Thabeet... in all of those cases, you are hoping they fill out and yet maintain the same athleticism... I would lean against the Randolph and McGees in terms of trading draft picks for them because we are going to need real players, not just projects, in order to compete in 2009 and 2010.

Wow I wouldnt bet my cookies that Greg Monroe was not better than Randolph or Mcgee. How can you say he's proven? No impact on a bad G Town team. Soft not very athletic.
RIP Crushalot😞
JohnWallace44
Posts: 25119
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 6/14/2005
Member: #910
USA
3/6/2009  10:46 AM
EGlass, no dude. How does Monroe fit this team?

Hard to say he's a more proven quantity than a player like Randolph who already has a high efficiency rating in the league.

Gallo, to his credit, has to go all out to make it up and down the floor with the rest of the team. If we draft a center, it has to be one that can run. Hill, Jordan, Thabeet, it's not as if there are none out there.
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?)
Page 1 of 2  1  2 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
How about this trade with Washington
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