TripleThreat wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:Bledsoe is very good. He's only one guy but he's a difference maker on both sides. There are a lot of similarities to Bledsoe and Kyle Lowry. Bledsoe is a year older than Lowry the year he went to Toronto.
With this year and next at $16mm a year he would be a good fit if its the right deal. To me that means Kanter. No to Frank or Willy.

Lowry's an ultra efficient scorer (50/40/80% from 2, 3, and FT last year) with good passing skills. He helps his team win games. He's a legit all-star. Bledsoe isn't any of those things. I don't mind Bledsoe at 16 mil. It's an adequate deal. If we don't have to give up anything of long-term value, I'm OK with a trade but I doubt Phoenix would be. I'd rather get a late 1st round pick for KOQ than have KOQ as part of a Bledsoe trade though. We'd have to be giving up nothing of value for me to be OK with the trade and Phoenix wouldn't be then.

Lowry is a better player now than he was when Tor traded for him. Thats the point. He's 50/40/80 NOW. He was 43/37/80 THEN.

You look for buy low opportunities. If you want Lowery NOW you pay the NOW price. We are looking for discounts and players that can improve. Bledsoe brings a lot to the table including a willingness to defend and he's light years better than any other PG on the club, has a cost friendly contract and Im only offering a player who is stunting the growth of the #2 prospect on our team right now. Tell me again why this would be a bad trade?

If you are saying Kanter for Bledsoe with some filler to make it all match, that's a fantastic trade for the Knicks, except it's a horrible trade for the Suns. The Suns already have one of the worst defenses in the league, tripling down on a pivot who will opt in next and choke their cap doesn't seem like a good move, short term or long term.

No one wants Kanter unless its for an injured player or a dead contract. The Suns would be happy to take Kanter for Brandon Knight ( whom they are likely to stretch anyway, plus a small asset or two. But not Bledsoe.

Lee and a future first round pick might get it done, but the Suns would want limited protections on it. They'd also ask for Dotson.

That being said if the offer was Lee and Dotson then I would do that also. Im high on Dotson but would lose him to get younger. Lee has two more years. That helps us as well. I would do either.

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:Bledsoe is very good. He's only one guy but he's a difference maker on both sides. There are a lot of similarities to Bledsoe and Kyle Lowry. Bledsoe is a year older than Lowry the year he went to Toronto.
With this year and next at $16mm a year he would be a good fit if its the right deal. To me that means Kanter. No to Frank or Willy.

Lowry's an ultra efficient scorer (50/40/80% from 2, 3, and FT last year) with good passing skills. He helps his team win games. He's a legit all-star. Bledsoe isn't any of those things. I don't mind Bledsoe at 16 mil. It's an adequate deal. If we don't have to give up anything of long-term value, I'm OK with a trade but I doubt Phoenix would be. I'd rather get a late 1st round pick for KOQ than have KOQ as part of a Bledsoe trade though. We'd have to be giving up nothing of value for me to be OK with the trade and Phoenix wouldn't be then.

Lowry is a better player now than he was when Tor traded for him. Thats the point. He's 50/40/80 NOW. He was 43/37/80 THEN.

You look for buy low opportunities. If you want Lowery NOW you pay the NOW price. We are looking for discounts and players that can improve. Bledsoe brings a lot to the table including a willingness to defend and he's light years better than any other PG on the club, has a cost friendly contract and Im only offering a player who is stunting the growth of the #2 prospect on our team right now. Tell me again why this would be a bad trade?

Bledsoe really hasn't been a defender for a while now. Part of it could be the situation he's stuck in, but I'm guessing a large part of it is the past injuries. Lowry was younger when Toronto traded for him and had better knees. Bledsoe is a riskier proposition. And again, we would still suck.

fishmike wrote:Kanter has more value than you give him credit for unless you think Presti (traded for him AND matched Portland's offer sheet) doesnt know value in the league. Kanter is a nice fit.

That being said if the offer was Lee and Dotson then I would do that also. Im high on Dotson but would lose him to get younger. Lee has two more years. That helps us as well. I would do either.

Kanter has the value that the current marketplace dictates, no more and no less. If your proposed deal was IMHO viable, I'd be happy for the Knicks to do it and get that kind of return. But it is just not viable from the Suns side. If Kanter was on a much lower AAV and the next year was a team option and not a player option, then Yes, he would have more value in the league. But that's not the case. If Noah was signed for two years, at 8 million AAV with a team option for the 2nd year, then sure, he'd look like a value then too. Value is going to be relative to length of deal, AAV, positional value, injury risk and history, fit and role, previous production benchmarks, etc. Kanter was available for a reason. Kanter sat on the trade market a long time before being a basic salary dump to the Knicks for a reason. He's very useful, but he's NOT A VALUE at his current AAV and contract status.

Kanter was resigned by OKC in a complicated situation, where the team was asset and cap locked and trying to win enough to retain Durant, and by extension, the longer team appeal for Westbrook.

It would take Lee and Dotson AND a future first round pick with very limited protections. Lee's contract runs a year longer than Bledsoes, and he's not as good a player as Bledsoe, so the quality of the pick would have to reflect that.

HofstraBBall wrote:

fishmike wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:Bledsoe is very good. He's only one guy but he's a difference maker on both sides. There are a lot of similarities to Bledsoe and Kyle Lowry. Bledsoe is a year older than Lowry the year he went to Toronto.
With this year and next at $16mm a year he would be a good fit if its the right deal. To me that means Kanter. No to Frank or Willy.

Lowry's an ultra efficient scorer (50/40/80% from 2, 3, and FT last year) with good passing skills. He helps his team win games. He's a legit all-star. Bledsoe isn't any of those things. I don't mind Bledsoe at 16 mil. It's an adequate deal. If we don't have to give up anything of long-term value, I'm OK with a trade but I doubt Phoenix would be. I'd rather get a late 1st round pick for KOQ than have KOQ as part of a Bledsoe trade though. We'd have to be giving up nothing of value for me to be OK with the trade and Phoenix wouldn't be then.

Lowry is a better player now than he was when Tor traded for him. Thats the point. He's 50/40/80 NOW. He was 43/37/80 THEN.

You look for buy low opportunities. If you want Lowery NOW you pay the NOW price. We are looking for discounts and players that can improve. Bledsoe brings a lot to the table including a willingness to defend and he's light years better than any other PG on the club, has a cost friendly contract and Im only offering a player who is stunting the growth of the #2 prospect on our team right now. Tell me again why this would be a bad trade?

If you are saying Kanter for Bledsoe with some filler to make it all match, that's a fantastic trade for the Knicks, except it's a horrible trade for the Suns. The Suns already have one of the worst defenses in the league, tripling down on a pivot who will opt in next and choke their cap doesn't seem like a good move, short term or long term.

No one wants Kanter unless its for an injured player or a dead contract. The Suns would be happy to take Kanter for Brandon Knight ( whom they are likely to stretch anyway, plus a small asset or two. But not Bledsoe.

Lee and a future first round pick might get it done, but the Suns would want limited protections on it. They'd also ask for Dotson.

Kanter has more value than you give him credit for unless you think Presti (traded for him AND matched Portland's offer sheet) doesnt know value in the league. Kanter is a nice fit.

That being said if the offer was Lee and Dotson then I would do that also. Im high on Dotson but would lose him to get younger. Lee has two more years. That helps us as well. I would do either.

Think in terms of value Kanter makes the most sense. But think it would take more than just Kanter. And isn't Kanter already what your claiming Bledsoe can be. A potential break out player that is still young. To me, maybe we get rid of some of the vets and average assets for more picks. And hope we keep adding young pieces that can develop into higher tier players. Isn't that why we got rid of Melo. To add 2 young fringe players and give them a chance? But now we are talking about moving on from them after 3 games? But agaun, if you can do Kanter for Bledsoe Eltham ok. Just don't see that happening.

BRIGGS wrote:We want to win 15 games so we have a great chance at pick# 1. We have to accept a losing year for the greater good. We don't need Eric Bledsoe and we certainly shouldn't trade any young player-- and IMHO we should simply pass. Who cares if we win 15-18 games-- helps us

Agree completely. I see zero reason for us to pursue this trade and then rationalize and convince ourselves to give up more and more value. Dotson plus picks are more valuable long term and can land us better players without injury history later. This minitrnd of acquiring questionable players at high salaries and pretending we are still in rebuild mode is worrisome.

THJR at that contract - Negative value, time wool tell of he fits the rebuild
Kanter - Negative value, but less negative than Melo given their contracts. Eating too many minutes away from Willy. Should NOT be part of a long term plan
Bledsoe- if he costs us a young player or a pick, negative value, but he alone is a two way player in this group
Noah - Negative value

Salary cap hell for another two years and loss of flexibility

fishmike wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

fishmike wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:Bledsoe is very good. He's only one guy but he's a difference maker on both sides. There are a lot of similarities to Bledsoe and Kyle Lowry. Bledsoe is a year older than Lowry the year he went to Toronto.
With this year and next at $16mm a year he would be a good fit if its the right deal. To me that means Kanter. No to Frank or Willy.

Lowry's an ultra efficient scorer (50/40/80% from 2, 3, and FT last year) with good passing skills. He helps his team win games. He's a legit all-star. Bledsoe isn't any of those things. I don't mind Bledsoe at 16 mil. It's an adequate deal. If we don't have to give up anything of long-term value, I'm OK with a trade but I doubt Phoenix would be. I'd rather get a late 1st round pick for KOQ than have KOQ as part of a Bledsoe trade though. We'd have to be giving up nothing of value for me to be OK with the trade and Phoenix wouldn't be then.

Lowry is a better player now than he was when Tor traded for him. Thats the point. He's 50/40/80 NOW. He was 43/37/80 THEN.

You look for buy low opportunities. If you want Lowery NOW you pay the NOW price. We are looking for discounts and players that can improve. Bledsoe brings a lot to the table including a willingness to defend and he's light years better than any other PG on the club, has a cost friendly contract and Im only offering a player who is stunting the growth of the #2 prospect on our team right now. Tell me again why this would be a bad trade?

If you are saying Kanter for Bledsoe with some filler to make it all match, that's a fantastic trade for the Knicks, except it's a horrible trade for the Suns. The Suns already have one of the worst defenses in the league, tripling down on a pivot who will opt in next and choke their cap doesn't seem like a good move, short term or long term.

No one wants Kanter unless its for an injured player or a dead contract. The Suns would be happy to take Kanter for Brandon Knight ( whom they are likely to stretch anyway, plus a small asset or two. But not Bledsoe.

Lee and a future first round pick might get it done, but the Suns would want limited protections on it. They'd also ask for Dotson.

Kanter has more value than you give him credit for unless you think Presti (traded for him AND matched Portland's offer sheet) doesnt know value in the league. Kanter is a nice fit.

That being said if the offer was Lee and Dotson then I would do that also. Im high on Dotson but would lose him to get younger. Lee has two more years. That helps us as well. I would do either.

Think in terms of value Kanter makes the most sense. But think it would take more than just Kanter. And isn't Kanter already what your claiming Bledsoe can be. A potential break out player that is still young. To me, maybe we get rid of some of the vets and average assets for more picks. And hope we keep adding young pieces that can develop into higher tier players. Isn't that why we got rid of Melo. To add 2 young fringe players and give them a chance? But now we are talking about moving on from them after 3 games? But agaun, if you can do Kanter for Bledsoe Eltham ok. Just don't see that happening.

I dont know how likely it is, but its what I would offer. If they say no they say no. Im not overpaying for a guy whos been banished from this team. There will be other opportunities.

And isn't Kanter already what your claiming Bledsoe can be. A potential break out player that is still young.

I like Kanter, like him alot. Its not about giving up on him. Its about balancing the roster and getting better. Better guard play will help the other guys on the floor. Moving Kanter opens up time for Willy.

We got rid of Melo because he didnt want to be here and showed that last year by posted career lows and not playing defense. Kanter was the best option and only deal that didnt involve taking a huge long ugly contract like Anderson back. If we flip Kanter and the Bulls pick for Bledsoe we essentially traded Melo for Bledsoe/McD and thats a coup.

I am not desperate here. Knicks shouldnt be either.

HofstraBBall wrote:

fishmike wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:Bledsoe is very good. He's only one guy but he's a difference maker on both sides. There are a lot of similarities to Bledsoe and Kyle Lowry. Bledsoe is a year older than Lowry the year he went to Toronto.
With this year and next at $16mm a year he would be a good fit if its the right deal. To me that means Kanter. No to Frank or Willy.

Lowry's an ultra efficient scorer (50/40/80% from 2, 3, and FT last year) with good passing skills. He helps his team win games. He's a legit all-star. Bledsoe isn't any of those things. I don't mind Bledsoe at 16 mil. It's an adequate deal. If we don't have to give up anything of long-term value, I'm OK with a trade but I doubt Phoenix would be. I'd rather get a late 1st round pick for KOQ than have KOQ as part of a Bledsoe trade though. We'd have to be giving up nothing of value for me to be OK with the trade and Phoenix wouldn't be then.

Lowry is a better player now than he was when Tor traded for him. Thats the point. He's 50/40/80 NOW. He was 43/37/80 THEN.

You look for buy low opportunities. If you want Lowery NOW you pay the NOW price. We are looking for discounts and players that can improve. Bledsoe brings a lot to the table including a willingness to defend and he's light years better than any other PG on the club, has a cost friendly contract and Im only offering a player who is stunting the growth of the #2 prospect on our team right now. Tell me again why this would be a bad trade?

If you are saying Kanter for Bledsoe with some filler to make it all match, that's a fantastic trade for the Knicks, except it's a horrible trade for the Suns. The Suns already have one of the worst defenses in the league, tripling down on a pivot who will opt in next and choke their cap doesn't seem like a good move, short term or long term.

No one wants Kanter unless its for an injured player or a dead contract. The Suns would be happy to take Kanter for Brandon Knight ( whom they are likely to stretch anyway, plus a small asset or two. But not Bledsoe.

Lee and a future first round pick might get it done, but the Suns would want limited protections on it. They'd also ask for Dotson.

Kanter has more value than you give him credit for unless you think Presti (traded for him AND matched Portland's offer sheet) doesnt know value in the league. Kanter is a nice fit.

That being said if the offer was Lee and Dotson then I would do that also. Im high on Dotson but would lose him to get younger. Lee has two more years. That helps us as well. I would do either.

Think in terms of value Kanter makes the most sense. But think it would take more than just Kanter. And isn't Kanter already what your claiming Bledsoe can be. A potential break out player that is still young. To me, maybe we get rid of some of the vets and average assets for more picks. And hope we keep adding young pieces that can develop into higher tier players. Isn't that why we got rid of Melo. To add 2 young fringe players and give them a chance? But now we are talking about moving on from them after 3 games? But agaun, if you can do Kanter for Bledsoe Eltham ok. Just don't see that happening.

there's really no dumping ground for vets because 99% of the nba is either capped out, or close to it. we don't really have and major expiring contracts.

I just think that you can't keep trading your players for lesser talent, that's going backwards.

fishmike wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

fishmike wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:Bledsoe is very good. He's only one guy but he's a difference maker on both sides. There are a lot of similarities to Bledsoe and Kyle Lowry. Bledsoe is a year older than Lowry the year he went to Toronto.
With this year and next at $16mm a year he would be a good fit if its the right deal. To me that means Kanter. No to Frank or Willy.

Lowry's an ultra efficient scorer (50/40/80% from 2, 3, and FT last year) with good passing skills. He helps his team win games. He's a legit all-star. Bledsoe isn't any of those things. I don't mind Bledsoe at 16 mil. It's an adequate deal. If we don't have to give up anything of long-term value, I'm OK with a trade but I doubt Phoenix would be. I'd rather get a late 1st round pick for KOQ than have KOQ as part of a Bledsoe trade though. We'd have to be giving up nothing of value for me to be OK with the trade and Phoenix wouldn't be then.

Lowry is a better player now than he was when Tor traded for him. Thats the point. He's 50/40/80 NOW. He was 43/37/80 THEN.

You look for buy low opportunities. If you want Lowery NOW you pay the NOW price. We are looking for discounts and players that can improve. Bledsoe brings a lot to the table including a willingness to defend and he's light years better than any other PG on the club, has a cost friendly contract and Im only offering a player who is stunting the growth of the #2 prospect on our team right now. Tell me again why this would be a bad trade?

If you are saying Kanter for Bledsoe with some filler to make it all match, that's a fantastic trade for the Knicks, except it's a horrible trade for the Suns. The Suns already have one of the worst defenses in the league, tripling down on a pivot who will opt in next and choke their cap doesn't seem like a good move, short term or long term.

No one wants Kanter unless its for an injured player or a dead contract. The Suns would be happy to take Kanter for Brandon Knight ( whom they are likely to stretch anyway, plus a small asset or two. But not Bledsoe.

Lee and a future first round pick might get it done, but the Suns would want limited protections on it. They'd also ask for Dotson.

Kanter has more value than you give him credit for unless you think Presti (traded for him AND matched Portland's offer sheet) doesnt know value in the league. Kanter is a nice fit.

That being said if the offer was Lee and Dotson then I would do that also. Im high on Dotson but would lose him to get younger. Lee has two more years. That helps us as well. I would do either.

Think in terms of value Kanter makes the most sense. But think it would take more than just Kanter. And isn't Kanter already what your claiming Bledsoe can be. A potential break out player that is still young. To me, maybe we get rid of some of the vets and average assets for more picks. And hope we keep adding young pieces that can develop into higher tier players. Isn't that why we got rid of Melo. To add 2 young fringe players and give them a chance? But now we are talking about moving on from them after 3 games? But agaun, if you can do Kanter for Bledsoe Eltham ok. Just don't see that happening.

I dont know how likely it is, but its what I would offer. If they say no they say no. Im not overpaying for a guy whos been banished from this team. There will be other opportunities.

And isn't Kanter already what your claiming Bledsoe can be. A potential break out player that is still young.

I like Kanter, like him alot. Its not about giving up on him. Its about balancing the roster and getting better. Better guard play will help the other guys on the floor. Moving Kanter opens up time for Willy.

We got rid of Melo because he didnt want to be here and showed that last year by posted career lows and not playing defense. Kanter was the best option and only deal that didnt involve taking a huge long ugly contract like Anderson back. If we flip Kanter and the Bulls pick for Bledsoe we essentially traded Melo for Bledsoe/McD and thats a coup.

I am not desperate here. Knicks shouldnt be either.

We got rid of Melo because he was too old. We only got what we did because of his NTC and Phil trashing his value and pissing him off to the point he only named one team he would waive the NTC to.

And good guard play is what We allegedly addressed in last year's draft but.....

I say Kanter is not the problem. As many years prior, fans like to focus on the wrong thing.

We need to get past contracts like Noah.
Need to trade KO and Lee. They are of no value to us. Get some more picks instead.
Need to move on from guys like Kuz and Mcbuckets.
Need to figure put if Frank is our PG. Or else trade for one that is or another shot at one in next year's draft.
Need to figure out if Timmy is worth what he is being paid and if we can fix his negative attitude and bad body language. Which i thought he got rid of in Atlanta.

All things that will take some time. But all more important than Kanter. Who again, is not sufficient for a Bledsoe trade. Imo

HofstraBBall wrote:

fishmike wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

fishmike wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:Bledsoe is very good. He's only one guy but he's a difference maker on both sides. There are a lot of similarities to Bledsoe and Kyle Lowry. Bledsoe is a year older than Lowry the year he went to Toronto.
With this year and next at $16mm a year he would be a good fit if its the right deal. To me that means Kanter. No to Frank or Willy.

Lowry's an ultra efficient scorer (50/40/80% from 2, 3, and FT last year) with good passing skills. He helps his team win games. He's a legit all-star. Bledsoe isn't any of those things. I don't mind Bledsoe at 16 mil. It's an adequate deal. If we don't have to give up anything of long-term value, I'm OK with a trade but I doubt Phoenix would be. I'd rather get a late 1st round pick for KOQ than have KOQ as part of a Bledsoe trade though. We'd have to be giving up nothing of value for me to be OK with the trade and Phoenix wouldn't be then.

Lowry is a better player now than he was when Tor traded for him. Thats the point. He's 50/40/80 NOW. He was 43/37/80 THEN.

You look for buy low opportunities. If you want Lowery NOW you pay the NOW price. We are looking for discounts and players that can improve. Bledsoe brings a lot to the table including a willingness to defend and he's light years better than any other PG on the club, has a cost friendly contract and Im only offering a player who is stunting the growth of the #2 prospect on our team right now. Tell me again why this would be a bad trade?

If you are saying Kanter for Bledsoe with some filler to make it all match, that's a fantastic trade for the Knicks, except it's a horrible trade for the Suns. The Suns already have one of the worst defenses in the league, tripling down on a pivot who will opt in next and choke their cap doesn't seem like a good move, short term or long term.

No one wants Kanter unless its for an injured player or a dead contract. The Suns would be happy to take Kanter for Brandon Knight ( whom they are likely to stretch anyway, plus a small asset or two. But not Bledsoe.

Lee and a future first round pick might get it done, but the Suns would want limited protections on it. They'd also ask for Dotson.

Kanter has more value than you give him credit for unless you think Presti (traded for him AND matched Portland's offer sheet) doesnt know value in the league. Kanter is a nice fit.

That being said if the offer was Lee and Dotson then I would do that also. Im high on Dotson but would lose him to get younger. Lee has two more years. That helps us as well. I would do either.

Think in terms of value Kanter makes the most sense. But think it would take more than just Kanter. And isn't Kanter already what your claiming Bledsoe can be. A potential break out player that is still young. To me, maybe we get rid of some of the vets and average assets for more picks. And hope we keep adding young pieces that can develop into higher tier players. Isn't that why we got rid of Melo. To add 2 young fringe players and give them a chance? But now we are talking about moving on from them after 3 games? But agaun, if you can do Kanter for Bledsoe Eltham ok. Just don't see that happening.

I dont know how likely it is, but its what I would offer. If they say no they say no. Im not overpaying for a guy whos been banished from this team. There will be other opportunities.

And isn't Kanter already what your claiming Bledsoe can be. A potential break out player that is still young.

I like Kanter, like him alot. Its not about giving up on him. Its about balancing the roster and getting better. Better guard play will help the other guys on the floor. Moving Kanter opens up time for Willy.

We got rid of Melo because he didnt want to be here and showed that last year by posted career lows and not playing defense. Kanter was the best option and only deal that didnt involve taking a huge long ugly contract like Anderson back. If we flip Kanter and the Bulls pick for Bledsoe we essentially traded Melo for Bledsoe/McD and thats a coup.

I am not desperate here. Knicks shouldnt be either.

We got rid of Melo because he was too old. We only got what we did because of his NTC and Phil trashing his value and pissing him off to the point he only named one team he would waive the NTC to.

And good guard play is what We allegedly addressed in last year's draft but.....

I say Kanter is not the problem. As many years prior, fans like to focus on the wrong thing.

We need to get past contracts like Noah.
Need to trade KO and Lee. They are of no value to us. Get some more picks instead.
Need to move on from guys like Kuz and Mcbuckets.
Need to figure put if Frank is our PG. Or else trade for one that is or another shot at one in next year's draft.
Need to figure out if Timmy is worth what he is being paid and if we can fix his negative attitude and bad body language. Which i thought he got rid of in Atlanta.

All things that will take some time. But all more important than Kanter. Who again, is not sufficient for a Bledsoe trade. Imo

Noah isn't going to be moved. We will have to stretch him when he enters his final yr.
KOQ will opt out. Maybe we can get a future 2nd rder for him.
If Lee could be moved he would have been moved already. The only hope really is to take a lesser player that has 2 yrs left and maybe a 2nd rder for his 3 yrs.
Dougie and Kuz all come off the books after the season.

Kanter in today's game is a 6th man on a winning team just like OKC used him for. Get strong per min production from him off the bench. We have Willy who can provide the same thing who is way cheaper. Most importantly Kanter is due a contract extension.

Would be better to get something for Kanter. Slide Willy in that role. Use the money saved on other needs.

Welpee wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

fishmike wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

fishmike wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:Bledsoe is very good. He's only one guy but he's a difference maker on both sides. There are a lot of similarities to Bledsoe and Kyle Lowry. Bledsoe is a year older than Lowry the year he went to Toronto.
With this year and next at $16mm a year he would be a good fit if its the right deal. To me that means Kanter. No to Frank or Willy.

Lowry's an ultra efficient scorer (50/40/80% from 2, 3, and FT last year) with good passing skills. He helps his team win games. He's a legit all-star. Bledsoe isn't any of those things. I don't mind Bledsoe at 16 mil. It's an adequate deal. If we don't have to give up anything of long-term value, I'm OK with a trade but I doubt Phoenix would be. I'd rather get a late 1st round pick for KOQ than have KOQ as part of a Bledsoe trade though. We'd have to be giving up nothing of value for me to be OK with the trade and Phoenix wouldn't be then.

Lowry is a better player now than he was when Tor traded for him. Thats the point. He's 50/40/80 NOW. He was 43/37/80 THEN.

You look for buy low opportunities. If you want Lowery NOW you pay the NOW price. We are looking for discounts and players that can improve. Bledsoe brings a lot to the table including a willingness to defend and he's light years better than any other PG on the club, has a cost friendly contract and Im only offering a player who is stunting the growth of the #2 prospect on our team right now. Tell me again why this would be a bad trade?

If you are saying Kanter for Bledsoe with some filler to make it all match, that's a fantastic trade for the Knicks, except it's a horrible trade for the Suns. The Suns already have one of the worst defenses in the league, tripling down on a pivot who will opt in next and choke their cap doesn't seem like a good move, short term or long term.

No one wants Kanter unless its for an injured player or a dead contract. The Suns would be happy to take Kanter for Brandon Knight ( whom they are likely to stretch anyway, plus a small asset or two. But not Bledsoe.

Lee and a future first round pick might get it done, but the Suns would want limited protections on it. They'd also ask for Dotson.

Kanter has more value than you give him credit for unless you think Presti (traded for him AND matched Portland's offer sheet) doesnt know value in the league. Kanter is a nice fit.

That being said if the offer was Lee and Dotson then I would do that also. Im high on Dotson but would lose him to get younger. Lee has two more years. That helps us as well. I would do either.

Think in terms of value Kanter makes the most sense. But think it would take more than just Kanter. And isn't Kanter already what your claiming Bledsoe can be. A potential break out player that is still young. To me, maybe we get rid of some of the vets and average assets for more picks. And hope we keep adding young pieces that can develop into higher tier players. Isn't that why we got rid of Melo. To add 2 young fringe players and give them a chance? But now we are talking about moving on from them after 3 games? But agaun, if you can do Kanter for Bledsoe Eltham ok. Just don't see that happening.

I dont know how likely it is, but its what I would offer. If they say no they say no. Im not overpaying for a guy whos been banished from this team. There will be other opportunities.

And isn't Kanter already what your claiming Bledsoe can be. A potential break out player that is still young.

I like Kanter, like him alot. Its not about giving up on him. Its about balancing the roster and getting better. Better guard play will help the other guys on the floor. Moving Kanter opens up time for Willy.

We got rid of Melo because he didnt want to be here and showed that last year by posted career lows and not playing defense. Kanter was the best option and only deal that didnt involve taking a huge long ugly contract like Anderson back. If we flip Kanter and the Bulls pick for Bledsoe we essentially traded Melo for Bledsoe/McD and thats a coup.

I am not desperate here. Knicks shouldnt be either.

We got rid of Melo because he was too old. We only got what we did because of his NTC and Phil trashing his value and pissing him off to the point he only named one team he would waive the NTC to.

And good guard play is what We allegedly addressed in last year's draft but.....

I say Kanter is not the problem. As many years prior, fans like to focus on the wrong thing.

We need to get past contracts like Noah.
Need to trade KO and Lee. They are of no value to us. Get some more picks instead.
Need to move on from guys like Kuz and Mcbuckets.
Need to figure put if Frank is our PG. Or else trade for one that is or another shot at one in next year's draft.
Need to figure out if Timmy is worth what he is being paid and if we can fix his negative attitude and bad body language. Which i thought he got rid of in Atlanta.

All things that will take some time. But all more important than Kanter. Who again, is not sufficient for a Bledsoe trade. Imo

Noah isn't going to be moved. We will have to stretch him when he enters his final yr.
KOQ will opt out. Maybe we can get a future 2nd rder for him.
If Lee could be moved he would have been moved already. The only hope really is to take a lesser player that has 2 yrs left and maybe a 2nd rder for his 3 yrs.
Dougie and Kuz all come off the books after the season.

Kanter in today's game is a 6th man on a winning team just like OKC used him for. Get strong per min production from him off the bench. We have Willy who can provide the same thing who is way cheaper. Most importantly Kanter is due a contract extension.

Would be better to get something for Kanter. Slide Willy in that role. Use the money saved on other needs.

Flip Kanter for Bledsoe straight up? According to ESPN trade machine it can be done immediately if there are no other players involved.

This makes sense for us. I don't believe that we can trade Kanter for about a month though.