TLover wrote:Knickoftime wrote:TLover wrote:Bucks need shooting and get rid of a contract like Henson hence the following trade proposal that works numbers wise:Rockets get: Melo & John Henson
Bucks get: Ryan Anderson, Eric Gordon, & Kyle O'Quinn
Knicks get: Jabari Parker, Greg Monroe (expiring), 4 non-guarantee contracts from Rockets.
Problem is, Rockets have shown no indication they are willing to move Gordon.
Highly doubt the Rockets would let Gordon get in the way in acquiring Melo.
I'm trying to figure which poster in this thread is smoking the largest size crack rock. I'm talking Pookie aka Chris Rock in New Jack City type crack addiction here.
IF, and that's a massive fantasyland IF, the Bucks were willing to trade Parker and only take back something like Anderson and Gordon, why wouldn't the Rockets TAKE PARKER THEMSELVES?
IF, and this is a huge IF, the Knicks had Drummond or Parker, would you want to trade them for Ryan Anderson? So why should the Bucks in real life?
IF, and this is a huge IF, Parker was on the trade block, the Knicks offer would have to be the best offer out of ALL THE REST OF THE 28 TEAMS IN THE LEAGUE
If you propose a trade that you wouldn't take yourself if the shoes were reversed, there is no reason why the other team in real life would do the deal either. Trades that are likely to happen equate something around "Win/Win" or the perception of it. Getting Jabari Parker and some firsts for Melo's aging corpse and bloated contract is basically trade rape.
Of course as a Knicks fan, I've love to see the Knicks totally horsef**k other teams over, again and again, in trades that pretty much blow up the other team and make the Knicks better. That's a nice thought. But it's NOT REALITY.
In real life, in real pro sports, in real front office scenarios, the guys who keep offering **** bird type trades are guys who don't get their calls returned. Because it's insulting. It's saying "I think you are stupid enough to do this deal and get yourself fired and have your kids starve"