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

Moves so far
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
3/19/2009  11:35 AM
The draft pick--no matter what anyone says there is a bottom line and the bottom line so far is D this can change but it is what it is right now.

Trading Balkman for essentially nothing. I don't remember reading any Balkman scks posts last year. Balkman really couldve helped this team at PF with his rebounding and defense. The 3 point requirement gig that is now in place has to be changed. When given an opportunity Balkman is proven to be a nice piece. F

Zach and Craw---at the end of the day we can go back and forth and dispute what we couldve or didnt get. They accomplished the cap space gig and we received a better player than Crawford back. Grade A

Duhon--I still give this a strong B. They played him into the ground--not his fault. He played exceptionally well for 50 games.

Hughes-he has been hot and cold--that is what he is. We didnt give up much and he sint signed long B-

Wilcox--Malik Rose has played better than Wilcox for the Thunder. I was for this trade but Wilcox isnt playing well. Shows the anti-David Lee crew that you CANNOT just bring in someone he can duplicate David's production because of this fast paced system C-

Samb Roberson and Nichols--nice try but pure failure couldve had Anthony Morrow--that's two Anthony's we couldve had that we don't:) D for didly

Coach--B- Has made the team somewhat relevant again which warrants atleast a B end of game coaching narcissism and lack of discipline knocks it down to a B-
RIP Crushalot😞
AUTOADVERT
PresIke
Posts: 27671
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/26/2001
Member: #33
USA
3/19/2009  11:43 AM
briggs, the balkman deal was about clearing space and getting something for him, since they didn't see him improving much, even if we all liked his defensive ability.

where was he going to play to even show any more worth?

we have/had a lot of sfs, and they drafted gallo.

i dunno about balkman proving much at this point in his career. he is a good defensive player, with a good handle, and that's pretty much it. not bad, but we had to consider the roster, and ability to get under the cap.

he was just not going to play much at all.
Forum Po Po and #33 for a reason...
PresIke
Posts: 27671
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/26/2001
Member: #33
USA
3/19/2009  11:45 AM
and your draft pick grade is FAR too premature, since usually you have to wait a few years, but we all know you hated the pick from day 1.
Forum Po Po and #33 for a reason...
JohnWallace44
Posts: 25119
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 6/14/2005
Member: #910
USA
3/19/2009  11:53 AM
If Memphis and Minny wanted Lee in order to switch picks with us, OK fine, so we didn't move up and get Mayo or Westbrook.

You have to wonder what our remaining grades were on Lopez, McGee and some of the others. I can see why they wouldn't have drafted yet another combo guard, so Gordon doesn't upset me.

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?)
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
3/19/2009  12:00 PM
Posted by PresIke:

briggs, the balkman deal was about clearing space and getting something for him, since they didn't see him improving much, even if we all liked his defensive ability.

where was he going to play to even show any more worth?

we have/had a lot of sfs, and they drafted gallo.

i dunno about balkman proving much at this point in his career. he is a good defensive player, with a good handle, and that's pretty much it. not bad, but we had to consider the roster, and ability to get under the cap.

he was just not going to play much at all.

What does Balkman have to do with the cap? If we had Balkman and played him at PF all year instead of Jefferies we would be much better. He can rebound defend and score efficiently--everything that Jefferies cant.

Also I said *as of now* the draft pick is a D. It is very possible they drafted damaged goods if you read into it. If that is the case thats on them. There are players that I believe that were flat out better than Gallinari even healthy.
RIP Crushalot😞
Bippity10
Posts: 13999
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2004
Member: #574
3/19/2009  12:05 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:

The draft pick--no matter what anyone says there is a bottom line and the bottom line so far is D this can change but it is what it is right now.

Trading Balkman for essentially nothing. I don't remember reading any Balkman scks posts last year. Balkman really couldve helped this team at PF with his rebounding and defense. The 3 point requirement gig that is now in place has to be changed. When given an opportunity Balkman is proven to be a nice piece. F

Zach and Craw---at the end of the day we can go back and forth and dispute what we couldve or didnt get. They accomplished the cap space gig and we received a better player than Crawford back. Grade A

Duhon--I still give this a strong B. They played him into the ground--not his fault. He played exceptionally well for 50 games.

Hughes-he has been hot and cold--that is what he is. We didnt give up much and he sint signed long B-

Wilcox--Malik Rose has played better than Wilcox for the Thunder. I was for this trade but Wilcox isnt playing well. Shows the anti-David Lee crew that you CANNOT just bring in someone he can duplicate David's production because of this fast paced system C-

Samb Roberson and Nichols--nice try but pure failure couldve had Anthony Morrow--that's two Anthony's we couldve had that we don't:) D for didly

Coach--B- Has made the team somewhat relevant again which warrants atleast a B end of game coaching narcissism and lack of discipline knocks it down to a B-

I think these are all pretty fair. For the Gallo pick I would still say an incomplete. If he he's injured and never performs than it becomes an F. Walsh's fault or not it would still be an F. But if the guy comes back 100% and does well......

Balkman-I was never a huge fan. He's a good energy guy but ultimately replaceable. Bad teams can't worry to much about guys like this. I personally think something was said in the summer conversations but that's just me. Regardless of what I think of Balkman and why they got rid of him it still doesn't excuse trading a guy for absolutely nothing so I agree iwth your grade.

The rest of your grades are what I would have given. I would give D'Antoni a B- as well. I think he's done a solid job of changing attitudes, ridding us of the quitting habit and generally getting the team to work hard. He still has a ways to go to rid the team of the self congratulation after a minor positive stretch but he's done a good job. Were I see him falling short is his inability to show improvement down the stretch of games.
I just hope that people will like me
franco12
Posts: 34069
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 2/19/2004
Member: #599
USA
3/19/2009  12:07 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by PresIke:

briggs, the balkman deal was about clearing space and getting something for him, since they didn't see him improving much, even if we all liked his defensive ability.

where was he going to play to even show any more worth?

we have/had a lot of sfs, and they drafted gallo.

i dunno about balkman proving much at this point in his career. he is a good defensive player, with a good handle, and that's pretty much it. not bad, but we had to consider the roster, and ability to get under the cap.

he was just not going to play much at all.

What does Balkman have to do with the cap? If we had Balkman and played him at PF all year instead of Jefferies we would be much better. He can rebound defend and score efficiently--everything that Jefferies cant.

Also I said *as of now* the draft pick is a D. It is very possible they drafted damaged goods if you read into it. If that is the case thats on them. There are players that I believe that were flat out better than Gallinari even healthy.

Briggs- you're actually too kind of the draft pick.

if you are a rational knick fan, you have to plan and assume that Gallo will not contribute.

If he comes back, great. But you cannot plan anything involving Gallo until he is healthy, and right now, NO ONE has an answer for when that will be.

And NO ANSWER= NEVER!
DarkKnicks
Posts: 21064
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/29/2005
Member: #882
Spain
3/19/2009  12:13 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:

Duhon--I still give this a strong B. They played him into the ground--not his fault. He played exceptionally well for 50 games.
You mean 30 games, right? The first post of Duhon being tired is from late December!!!
franco12
Posts: 34069
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 2/19/2004
Member: #599
USA
3/19/2009  12:16 PM
Posted by DarkKnicks:
Posted by BRIGGS:

Duhon--I still give this a strong B. They played him into the ground--not his fault. He played exceptionally well for 50 games.
You mean 30 games, right? The first post of Duhon being tired is from late December!!!

And we were calling Briggs crazy for wanting to trade Duhon. Should have!
PresIke
Posts: 27671
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/26/2001
Member: #33
USA
3/19/2009  12:19 PM
duhon is more hurt than tired i think.
Forum Po Po and #33 for a reason...
PresIke
Posts: 27671
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/26/2001
Member: #33
USA
3/19/2009  12:22 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by PresIke:

briggs, the balkman deal was about clearing space and getting something for him, since they didn't see him improving much, even if we all liked his defensive ability.

where was he going to play to even show any more worth?

we have/had a lot of sfs, and they drafted gallo.

i dunno about balkman proving much at this point in his career. he is a good defensive player, with a good handle, and that's pretty much it. not bad, but we had to consider the roster, and ability to get under the cap.

he was just not going to play much at all.

What does Balkman have to do with the cap? If we had Balkman and played him at PF all year instead of Jefferies we would be much better. He can rebound defend and score efficiently--everything that Jefferies cant.

Also I said *as of now* the draft pick is a D. It is very possible they drafted damaged goods if you read into it. If that is the case thats on them. There are players that I believe that were flat out better than Gallinari even healthy.

plenty. they didn't want to be in a position where they were going to lose him for nothing, because his contract is up for renewal, so they got a 2nd rounder, which is a non-guaranteed contract, and therefore not going to hurt the cap.

they probably didn't see him getting the minutes needed to fully evaluate given the roster composition and cap situation.

so, basically he probably wouldn't play, and then they would have to re-sign him even though they wouldn't see if he developed or was worth it?

they were also disappointed with the work ethic in improving his game after a lackluster summer league.

i liked balkman quite a bit, but the move was made with sound logic, given the knicks plans, much of which revolves around creating "cap flexibility" as walsh stated.

[Edited by - PresIke on 03-19-2009 12:23 PM]

[Edited by - PresIke on 03-19-2009 12:24 PM]
Forum Po Po and #33 for a reason...
PresIke
Posts: 27671
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/26/2001
Member: #33
USA
3/19/2009  12:30 PM
briggs, i mean, why else would the knicks trade him for not equal value?

did we get equal value, quality wise, in the z-bo trade?

the craw deal we probably did better, but that was a disgruntled player they gave up for a player who was not on our side, and was doing well.

so at that time craw was looking better than harrington.

same with hughes for james, thomas and roberson, or wilcox for rose.

basically, all of the moves we've made since walsh has been here have been CLEARLY made with serious consideration for creating better cap flexibility.

the balkman deal included.
Forum Po Po and #33 for a reason...
martin
Posts: 79878
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
3/19/2009  2:16 PM
Posted by Bippity10:

Balkman-I was never a huge fan. He's a good energy guy but ultimately replaceable. Bad teams can't worry to much about guys like this. I personally think something was said in the summer conversations but that's just me. Regardless of what I think of Balkman and why they got rid of him it still doesn't excuse trading a guy for absolutely nothing so I agree iwth your grade.

I don't get when people say we traded Balk for absolutely nothing. Walsh traded him for Taurean Green, Bobby Jones, 2010 second round pick and cash. Green and Jones were cut and the cash probably offset them.

What were your expectations? 1st round pick?
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
RonRon
Posts: 25531
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/22/2002
Member: #246
3/19/2009  3:53 PM
in all fairness, i think the balkmen trade was made because we were stuck with fishlips as simliar position.....i rather have balkman play that role personally but they still got a pick for him and no one is going to take fishlips anyway
nyk4ever
Posts: 41010
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 1/12/2005
Member: #848
USA
3/19/2009  4:15 PM
If Denver tried to trade Balkman now, they would get the same package or LESS then what we got for him.
"OMG - did we just go on a two-trade-wining-streak?" -SupremeCommander
TheGame
Posts: 26651
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/15/2006
Member: #1154
USA
3/19/2009  5:03 PM
Posted by nyk4ever:

If Denver tried to trade Balkman now, they would get the same package or LESS then what we got for him.

Actually, I think they could get a late first round pick for him. He really is an above-average defender and rebounder.
Trust the Process
martin
Posts: 79878
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
3/19/2009  5:36 PM
Posted by TheGame:
Posted by nyk4ever:

If Denver tried to trade Balkman now, they would get the same package or LESS then what we got for him.

Actually, I think they could get a late first round pick for him. He really is an above-average defender and rebounder.

no they couldn't.
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
PresIke
Posts: 27671
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/26/2001
Member: #33
USA
3/19/2009  6:23 PM
Posted by martin:
Posted by TheGame:
Posted by nyk4ever:

If Denver tried to trade Balkman now, they would get the same package or LESS then what we got for him.

Actually, I think they could get a late first round pick for him. He really is an above-average defender and rebounder.

no they couldn't.

i agree. balkman is not going to net you a 1st round pick. no way.
Forum Po Po and #33 for a reason...
nyk4ever
Posts: 41010
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 1/12/2005
Member: #848
USA
3/19/2009  6:39 PM
Who in their right mind would trade a 1st round pick for renaldo balkman? You can find any player who played in low 1A ball to do what he does.
"OMG - did we just go on a two-trade-wining-streak?" -SupremeCommander
arkrud
Posts: 32217
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 8/31/2005
Member: #995
USA
3/19/2009  6:40 PM
Posted by PresIke:
Posted by martin:
Posted by TheGame:
Posted by nyk4ever:

If Denver tried to trade Balkman now, they would get the same package or LESS then what we got for him.

Actually, I think they could get a late first round pick for him. He really is an above-average defender and rebounder.

no they couldn't.

i agree. balkman is not going to net you a 1st round pick. no way.

Balk...man...
So sad we are even remember him.
How bad you should be to borther about this kind of players?
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet
Page 1 of 2  1  2 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Moves so far
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