AnubisADL wrote:Gallo and Randolph alone is better than Chris Paul to me.

We have a really good PG that we just bought--Chris Paul is an upgrade but not at the expense of tearing down the roster--if I just watche the Lakers won the championship two years running with Derrick Fisher

Solace wrote:I don't see why (or how) we'd have to give up all of that to get Chris Paul. There's not going to be a 5 for 1 trade. Felton, Gallo or AR and one other young player aside from AR or Gallo for Paul I would do. If they want much more than that, pass.

Let me ask a dumb question--if you were NO GM--what would you ask for for Chris Paul--remember I can trade him anywhere--so this is what I want. If you don't like it the blaserz will give me more.

BRIGGS wrote:

Solace wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Solace wrote:I don't see why (or how) we'd have to give up all of that to get Chris Paul. There's not going to be a 5 for 1 trade. Felton, Gallo or AR and one other young player aside from AR or Gallo for Paul I would do. If they want much more than that, pass.

Let me ask a dumb question--if you were NO GM--what would you ask for for Chris Paul--remember I can trade him anywhere--so this is what I want. If you don't like it the blaserz will give me more.

Well, that's fine. If another team is going to overpay, then let them. But, a 5 for 1 trade isn't even possible, as it would put NO over the roster limit. But, you said yourself, you think Gallo is a star and you think AR is a star. If the league has similar perceptions, then those are high value pieces. Just like everyone bitched when Pau Gasol got traded for "nothing", yet part of that "nothing" was Marc Gasol, who may now wind up being as good or better than Pau. In retrospect, it was a fair trade.

In this case, if you give up say Felton, Gallo and Chandler, IMHO, that's a very talented package for Paul and I dare another team to offer a better player than Gallo or a better combination. If they do, then they obviously outbid us and we move on. No need to gut the team. If the deal isn't worth it, don't take it. Simple.

Gallo Chandler and Felton is much to much. Jus think hard about it. You're acting like Felton is crap --when he is very capable of putting up 16/17/8/9 4 a game--we don't ahev to give up anything and we keep those two players--Cahndler and Gallo each have the ability to average close to 20---that is a LOT.

Your story sounds different if WE DID NOT haev Fleton but the reality is we do.

A 17/9 PG is pretty much an All-Star PG - which Raymond Felton is not. You don't see the huge gap from Felton to Chris Paul. Calm down with those expectations or you'll be very disappointed.

iSergio wrote:1 SuperStar/franchise player/once a decade type of PG > 5 average prospects

Gallo and Randolph are no average prospects. I'd give up Randolph and Curry and possibly Chandler to get Paul, but there's no way in hell I'd throw in both AR and Gallo.

If we called NO right now, they'd ask for the farm.

metra wrote:Hey UK, Poll Man here!

If you like BRIGGS' poll, check out my poll at http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topic.asp?t=36050.

It has features like

• More than two options!
• More realistic trade scenarios!
• Correct spelling & grammar!

People want a choice--hot dog or hamburger--not well can this happen--well maybe this or this and or possibly this. REALITY NO is going to ask for the boat--that is the reality and that is why I posted this. Bad grammers and all.

BRIGGS wrote:

Solace wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Solace wrote:I don't see why (or how) we'd have to give up all of that to get Chris Paul. There's not going to be a 5 for 1 trade. Felton, Gallo or AR and one other young player aside from AR or Gallo for Paul I would do. If they want much more than that, pass.

Let me ask a dumb question--if you were NO GM--what would you ask for for Chris Paul--remember I can trade him anywhere--so this is what I want. If you don't like it the blaserz will give me more.

Well, that's fine. If another team is going to overpay, then let them. But, a 5 for 1 trade isn't even possible, as it would put NO over the roster limit. But, you said yourself, you think Gallo is a star and you think AR is a star. If the league has similar perceptions, then those are high value pieces. Just like everyone bitched when Pau Gasol got traded for "nothing", yet part of that "nothing" was Marc Gasol, who may now wind up being as good or better than Pau. In retrospect, it was a fair trade.

In this case, if you give up say Felton, Gallo and Chandler, IMHO, that's a very talented package for Paul and I dare another team to offer a better player than Gallo or a better combination. If they do, then they obviously outbid us and we move on. No need to gut the team. If the deal isn't worth it, don't take it. Simple.

Gallo Chandler and Felton is much to much. Jus think hard about it. You're acting like Felton is crap --when he is very capable of putting up 16/17/8/9 4 a game--we don't ahev to give up anything and we keep those two players--Cahndler and Gallo each have the ability to average close to 20---that is a LOT.

Your story sounds different if WE DID NOT haev Fleton but the reality is we do.

Paul replaces Felton, so Felton is irrelevant. That's a clear, unquestionable, upgrade. What I mentioned is simply the most I would sacrifice. If NO takes less, I'd do less.

DurzoBlint wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:Gallo and Randolph alone is better than Chris Paul to me.

We have a really good PG that we just bought--Chris Paul is an upgrade but not at the expense of tearing down the roster--if I just watche the Lakers won the championship two years running with Derrick Fisher

yeah, its not like we still have Dudu. Felton may be 2nd tier but he's at the very top of that 2nd tier. Paul is better but like ^said, not superior enough to justify moving Gallo. Randolph...eh, we just don't really know what he can give. As such, I would be (if gm) willing to move him. My thought process is, you won't/shouldn't miss what you really haven't had.

I've known many a financial trader that cried over evaporated unrealized gains.
They're real, even if not booked.

Sanity exists