None of us can tell the future. We don’t know if things will work out.

But consider that almighty “C” word: Ceiling.

It dares you to imagine the best-case scenario. And if you do that, with this Knicks roster, they’re easily better than the pre-Melo version.

That doesn’t mean that the Knicks didn’t overpay for Anthony. They did.

But at the end of the day, in pro basketball, you trade five quarters for a dollar bill, because the pieces required to make that dollar bill worth more are a dime a dozen.

In less than one year, Glen Grunwald proved that.

You may have also missed another age-old adage being proven: Real recognizes real.

Tyson Chandler, J.R. Smith, Baron Davis, Steve Novak and Mike Bibby all came to play in New York because they believed that they could help StoudeMelo get to the next level.

Few, if any of them would have signed on in New York if not for James Dolan doing whatever it took to get Anthony.

The team is .500 and since the deal the record is what it is. But the ROSTER is molding into one of the deepest teams in the NBA, after just 36 games this season.

There is SOME justification for the owner’s reported interference based on what this bench COULD become and what they did the other night against the Cavs.

Let’s see if it continues.

The attraction of StatMelo if what actually got players here, is the very thing that might be wrong with the team.

To me, Chandler/Lin is the big ticket now.

Nalod wrote:Maybe we'll never really know the answer.

The attraction of StatMelo if what actually got players here, is the very thing that might be wrong with the team.To me, Chandler/Lin is the big ticket now.

If that Combo attracted Tyson Chandler, JR and Baron Davis here, there is certainly nothing wrong with that....

loweyecue wrote:Even a dead horse gets tired of saying " ouch" at some point.

It's not about the dead horse, it's about the guy who is beating it, and if he is not done taking whacks, then it's still validificated.

Which is almost a whole Dirk, and that's good.

Knixkik wrote:They may have sacrified too much, but they sacrified what was needed to get him. And players came to New York because Melo and Stoudemire were here. The current team is as good as it is because that trade was made. Lin was given a chance because this deal was made and there was no other PG in the equation. So when it is all said and done, however you spin it, it was the right move.

Lin, Fields, Anthony, Stoudemire, Chandler plus a strong bench is 100 times better than Felton, Fields, Gallo, Stoudemire, Turiaf. That is what matters to me. Lin, Melo, and Chandler are the core of a championship team for the next 5-7 years, and hopefully Stoudemire plays his way back into being an integral part of the core.

babyKnicks wrote:Via Sheridan Hoops

None of us can tell the future. We don’t know if things will work out.

But consider that almighty “C” word: Ceiling.

It dares you to imagine the best-case scenario. And if you do that, with this Knicks roster, they’re easily better than the pre-Melo version.

That doesn’t mean that the Knicks didn’t overpay for Anthony. They did.

But at the end of the day, in pro basketball, you trade five quarters for a dollar bill, because the pieces required to make that dollar bill worth more are a dime a dozen.

In less than one year, Glen Grunwald proved that.

You may have also missed another age-old adage being proven: Real recognizes real.

Tyson Chandler, J.R. Smith, Baron Davis, Steve Novak and Mike Bibby all came to play in New York because they believed that they could help StoudeMelo get to the next level.

Few, if any of them would have signed on in New York if not for James Dolan doing whatever it took to get Anthony.

The team is .500 and since the deal the record is what it is. But the ROSTER is molding into one of the deepest teams in the NBA, after just 36 games this season.

There is SOME justification for the owner’s reported interference based on what this bench COULD become and what they did the other night against the Cavs.

Let’s see if it continues.

least you could do is link it?

http://www.sheridanhoops.com/2012/03/02/hamilton-knicks-james-dolan-vindicated0302/

TripleThreat wrote:moved Eddy Curry for some type of asset down the road and just held on.

I heard the list of suitors for Eddy Curry was enormous. And by "list of suitors" I mean "Arby's tab."

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:They may have sacrified too much, but they sacrified what was needed to get him. And players came to New York because Melo and Stoudemire were here. The current team is as good as it is because that trade was made. Lin was given a chance because this deal was made and there was no other PG in the equation. So when it is all said and done, however you spin it, it was the right move.

Lin, Fields, Anthony, Stoudemire, Chandler plus a strong bench is 100 times better than Felton, Fields, Gallo, Stoudemire, Turiaf. That is what matters to me. Lin, Melo, and Chandler are the core of a championship team for the next 5-7 years, and hopefully Stoudemire plays his way back into being an integral part of the core.

The trade will and should be judged by how well Melo, Gallo, Moz, and the others play - not by some unknowable claims about who the Melo trade indirectly led to joining the team.

Can't you add Chandler to that list? We essentially swapped Billups for Chandler. And, to me, Chandler alone is more of an impact player than everyone you listed, including Melo.

What do you mean? Who cares how they do on an individual basis. The goal is to win a championship. The deal should be judged on what the outcome is for each team. Does this deal make the Knicks and the Nuggets better when it is all said and done? Right now, the Knicks are a significantly better team than they were this time last season, that is the only way to judge a team, if they become better as a result of the trade and what follows.

Can you judge the deal the Hornets (a rebuilding team) made in trading Paul right now? Of course not. You judge the deal based on the rebuilding project that comes after. You judge a trade based on the overall impact on the team, not how good the players who are traded play from an individual basis, as you suggest

In a vacuum, the trade was wack sauce.

Good things happened since the trade, but they cannot be attributed to the trade, which was wack sauce.

Just as easily as we are giving business now, we could be 10-26 and in a pile of garbage.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:They may have sacrified too much, but they sacrified what was needed to get him. And players came to New York because Melo and Stoudemire were here. The current team is as good as it is because that trade was made. Lin was given a chance because this deal was made and there was no other PG in the equation. So when it is all said and done, however you spin it, it was the right move.

Lin, Fields, Anthony, Stoudemire, Chandler plus a strong bench is 100 times better than Felton, Fields, Gallo, Stoudemire, Turiaf. That is what matters to me. Lin, Melo, and Chandler are the core of a championship team for the next 5-7 years, and hopefully Stoudemire plays his way back into being an integral part of the core.

The trade will and should be judged by how well Melo, Gallo, Moz, and the others play - not by some unknowable claims about who the Melo trade indirectly led to joining the team.

Can't you add Chandler to that list? We essentially swapped Billups for Chandler. And, to me, Chandler alone is more of an impact player than everyone you listed, including Melo.

Of course we can. Every good player that we add over the next 5 years is because of the Melo trade.

What do you mean? Who cares how they do on an individual basis. The goal is to win a championship. The deal should be judged on what the outcome is for each team. Does this deal make the Knicks and the Nuggets better when it is all said and done? Right now, the Knicks are a significantly better team than they were this time last season, that is the only way to judge a team, if they become better as a result of the trade and what follows.

Can you judge the deal the Hornets (a rebuilding team) made in trading Paul right now? Of course not. You judge the deal based on the rebuilding project that comes after. You judge a trade based on the overall impact on the team, not how good the players who are traded play from an individual basis, as you suggest

It's interesting that you interpreted the phrase "how well the player plays" as meaning individual performance. It could just as easily mean how much he helps his team to win games.