They would want Frank, Knox, and #1s.
Lillard turns 28 in a couple of days, and would be 29 by the time he played with a fully ready KP.
Knowing the Knicks, we would let KP play the second half of the season, win a few extra games, and we would lose the restricted 2019 #1 we would give up for Lillard.
Might do it if he was 24 going on 25, and KP was not injured. He seems made for a team ready to win now, though.
I want to see our young players develop together, and see what they can grow into. Won't say that I'm not intrigued by having Lillard with the Knicks, but giving up two teenage top picks, and more in the future, seems like we are going back to the old days again.
How do folks think GS got Durant to go there? They built from the draft and picked up some complimentary pieces.
Curry, Thompson, Green, and Harrison Barnes were not "blue chip" players when they were drafted...they developed over time. Curry was on 3 lottery teams, and teams that won 23 & 26 games during his first 3 years. Green was a 22yr old scrub his first season, and only a 20MPG rotation player his second season.
If we are looking for a star player, I'd rather wait for Irving, who has roots in the East, and we could make the Knicks better without giving away young talent, and also hurt the Celtics at the same time.
Trading for Lillard would be the same as trading for Anthony (Maybe worse). No matter what folks want to say, we hurt the team in the long run by trading away players who, even if you didn't love them, might have been trade assets later on. We were also forced to use our contract amnesty provision (is that what it was called) on someone other than Amare, who it should have been used on.
Why give up young assets and draft picks for Lillard, when you might have Irving, a younger player (though injury prone) available after next year?
EnySpree: Can we agree to agree not to mention Phil Jackson and triangle for the rest of our lives?