instead of just taking a big we have seen how good Martell Webster is. He is a sniper in an athletic 6-7 225 pd body. He probably is the BPA anyway at that spot.

if we go

8 Webster

30 Robinson

53 Akindale


Sign Stephen Hunter to a full MLE




Line up

C Hunter 7-1 235
PF Thomas 6-9 240
SF Thomas 6-10 245
SG Crawford 6-5 190
PG Marb 6-2 200
C Sweetney
F Taylor
F Ariza
SG Webster
PG Robinson
Rose
JYD
IR
Penny
Akindale

how about Webster 8
and trade pick 30, plus 2006 #1 (Spurs) and $1mm cash to Memphis for pick 19 and take CJ Miles.
Stick w/ 53 Akindale and if he's uber impressive in workouts give him a 3 year $3mm promise if he doesnt work out for another team.

Then you lock up 2 wing players with star potential

Hell yeah Webster at 8 and Nate at 30.

IT can use KT, TT, and Penny's contracts to get a big as good as anything we'd get at 8 or 30 this year.

Only exception would be Blatche at 30 and then sign Damon S (flame away) to an MLE.

But either way I like Webster at 8 and trade/sign for a big.

Posted by crzymdups:

I would love to take Nate Rob at 30, but I think it would be insane to pass up size at the 8th pick. Green is the only "small" I would consider, because he's so long and has the potential to be special. Otherwise, I want someone who can come in and start at SF or C.

I agree that offering a full MLE to Stephen Hunter should be a priority, but I'm bracing for the KT + 30 pick for Z or something.

I've been reading all the comments on rivals about martell, and while he played very well during the games, supposedly he stood out in practice, over everyone. A lot of comparisons to Glenn Rice with a better dribble drive game. He was the best shooter in the class, and second place, icluding green wasnt close. At that size 6-7 225 and 18 with his shooting skills and athletiscm[no where near greens neighborhood which makes him stand out] for the 2G makes him a serious prospct. Look at the Knick team picture--what do we lack--bigs and guards, we only have 2 guards, one gets hurt and bang. Trevor Ariza is not a G, he's a 3. Im just thinking that bigs we may want--if they are really good enough, would be gone by 8. that makes some sense, no? Do I want a 6-7 225 SG over Hakim 6-8 215 F. Yes< i think he equates better to the NBA and has great natural fundamental talent. Look how hard it is for teams to find big SGs. Just as hard to find a big player.

I like Nate for all the intangibles he brings. Best athlete in draft, also very high effecincy player--career fG% 46% great rebounder for his size, tremenous character, main componenet on a team that went 30-4 with a 1 seed. Showed that he could play PG this year very well. Very good defender fron baseline to baseline. Strong, very good shooter. He's a winner, he's above other candidates in that range iMHO, unless someone we may like up top takes a serious irrational fall.

Hey Briggs, from what you have seen of Webster, how is his shot selection and does he bring a mid range game to the table? I am very curious about this kid and am very interested in him (And Green) just like you. I just pray the Knicks don't screw this up.

Also, do you think if we got Nate Robsinson, he'd eventually have to become an NBA starter (Hence, either trade him or Marbury?)

[Edited by - Allanfan20 on 04/30/2005 10:49:17]

It will be interesting to see who moves up because we will then likely have a chance at some of the good center prospects out there. We will definitely have a chance to get a great player for the future at 8th...

Posted by Knicksfan:

The bad thing is that we already have Crawford and long term. Webster could be a that good of a pick but where does it help us? If you already have a plan to get two centers, one of them quality starter at least, with at least two of the too many power forwards we have, then do it. Its true that we lack at guard too, especially with H2O injured and Penny on the out. I just think that we have other priorities right now and if we can take care of them then sure bring more depth to the team. But, like many said, if you can bring a good center with real potential with the 8th pick, you must do it because thats a priority. Now, it you tell me the Crawford at SG experiment is over and you will trade him this offseason, then its ok. It would be nice to have a real SG at the two, but thats just me...

1st: Bring the best talent home
2nd: If its a big, its no brainer
3rd: If you're sure of bringing some Cs in other ways, take the guard you love the most

I like your thinking a lot. I've been working hard to talk myself into Petro, Andreezy or Taft because like everyone else I'm desperate for a center. But I'm now much more open to taking the best player no matter what size. I'd even take Chris Paul and trade Marbs for a big, and I never thought I'd say that.

Nate Robinson is a better rebounder than Tim Thomas.