Also, you don't trade a lottery rookie center for a player who doesn't get much burn. I like Bayless but wouldn't do it. If management feels Bayless is that good, then I wouldn't be destroyed over it. But let's see what Hill's got.

I'm not sure I'd want to give up Hill to get him and I'm not sure we'd have to either.

Ira wrote:I agree that Bayless, Hill and Nate are similar players.

Pretty sure you meant Douglas.

TheGame wrote:Is Bayless really better than Douglas, or so much better that we give up on Hill?? Hill was a top-10 pick with top-10 talent at the PF spot. I think you have to give this guy at least a year to develop before you entertain trading him, unless it is in a deal for Bosh or Amare.

We need to some how get rid of Jefferies--that is VERY key. I would like to give the guy[Hill] opportunity as well-but the Knicks just are not going to do it. At the end of the day I would like to get value for the 8 pick somehow--if that means giving Hill nate and Jefferies to a team that needs depth for cap space next year--thats an additional 10mm $. That would allow us to retain Lee and AH--which I think is imperative.

kam77 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

TheGame wrote:Is Bayless really better than Douglas, or so much better that we give up on Hill?? Hill was a top-10 pick with top-10 talent at the PF spot. I think you have to give this guy at least a year to develop before you entertain trading him, unless it is in a deal for Bosh or Amare.

We need to some how get rid of Jefferies--that is VERY key. I would like to give the guy[Hill] opportunity as well-but the Knicks just are not going to do it. At the end of the day I would like to get value for the 8 pick somehow--if that means giving Hill nate and Jefferies to a team that needs depth for cap space next year--thats an additional 10mm $. That would allow us to retain Lee and AH--which I think is imperative.

If we move Jeffries we're going to try to sign a 2nd top tier FA. Not sign our own guys. And if we keep one, its Lee not AL.

I'd keep Al, not Lee. Al plays on both sides of the ball. Its like getting twice the player than Lee. Though I did see a David Lee block last night... its like seeing a unicorn. I was mystified.

BRIGGS wrote:

TheGame wrote:Is Bayless really better than Douglas, or so much better that we give up on Hill?? Hill was a top-10 pick with top-10 talent at the PF spot. I think you have to give this guy at least a year to develop before you entertain trading him, unless it is in a deal for Bosh or Amare.

We need to some how get rid of Jefferies--that is VERY key. I would like to give the guy[Hill] opportunity as well-but the Knicks just are not going to do it. At the end of the day I would like to get value for the 8 pick somehow--if that means giving Hill nate and Jefferies to a team that needs depth for cap space next year--thats an additional 10mm $. That would allow us to retain Lee and AH--which I think is imperative.

Unless Portland is under the cap, we cannot trade Jeffries, Hill, and Nate for Bayless unless they send us back an expiring (I think Outlaw might be expiring). I think we can trade Jeffries with just Nate and Jeffries if we package them together and add a second round pick and $3 million dollars. I would be reluctant to give up Hill just to get rid of salary unless we were eliminating Curry and Jeffries and clearing enough room to sign 2 max FA and someone else to totally revamp the team. This is especially the case here because Lee might get an offer that we cannot match. Hill would be a cheaper alternative at the PF spot.

EwingsGlass wrote:Not to say there cannot be exceptions, but isn't a cardinal rule not to trade comparable bigs for smalls? Neither Hill nor Bayless have really had an opportunity to show very much. I like Bayless and think that his scoring at the PG would be an asset, but I am not ready to trade Big for Small on this one.

With respect to "cap hold", it really isn't a cap hold, its actual salary so there is no multiplier. The salary difference between Bayless and Hill in 2010 is only $400K. I don't think that amount is substantial enough to trade a PF/C for a combo guard, considering that the potential abilities of both haven't been fully explored.

I would do it--and I think Portland would do it--here is my thinking

I think Nate R is gone--I'm not equating him--so lets take him out.

Personally on basis of what I have seen in terms of talent---I felt that Bayless is and was the better TALENT than Hill coming into the draft-albeit different years. In this system--Bayless will pass more and gives us a dimension we absolutely do not have-- a guard who can penetrate at will and finish at the rim. I think he has a better handle than Douglas--and I don't view Bayless and Douglas as antagonistic but rather complimentary. I am with you on big for small but not in this case. We didnt get Sessions for 4mm and I think Bayless is better than Sessions at 2mm--you can see it--the guy is ready to explode--just needs the opportunity.

While we have had success--I am a realist that we need to improve --if we were able to do Hill for Bayless I think we'd be a better basketball team right now. It also hedges out our guard situation.

If they offered me Bayless for Hill--it would be a done deal.

Andrew wrote:Regardless of the Hill vs Bayless talent arguement, trading Hill leaves you paper thin on the front line next year. Consider that Lee, Harrington, Darko are all UFAs you could potentially be left with Gallo, Curry (if healthy) and JJ as your biggest players.

Exactly. I don't mind going after Bayless, but I wouldn't be using Hill as the trade chip.