Also, the Knicks people are floating that they are interested in Biyombo. To me, they are negotiating years and the Knicks saying they are interested in Biyombo is them telling Noah that we have a plan B.
I would go for DeRosen everything being equal. A SG at 27 and a weak position in the league right now. And Maybe TMoz at the 5. I don't think he leaves Toronto though.
I just don't think he ever becomes a starter in this league and I think the risk on rose was worth it...if he is healthy you got an absolute steal...
If he isn't you let him expire and move on
My point to you wasnt an evaluation of Grant. It was a disagreement with your statement that they havent sacrificed their future "one bit". I dont know how you could say that unless you're declaring Grant a bust after one season.
Bigger picture I think the people who say Grant showed nothing are being foolish. It's that instant gratification element that hurts our ability to team build.
No chance Phil was committing to Conley or Rondo, so he dealt Lopez for a short-term solution at PG and maintained flexibility for next year's loaded class, knowing he could spend money this summer in deeper C and SG markets. It was the exact opposite of a "same old Knicks" quick fix - he actually showed some foresight in making that deal.
You could make a case that Holiday is a better player than Grant.
I would go for DeRosen everything being equal. A SG at 27 and a weak position in the league right now. And Maybe TMoz at the 5. I don't think he leaves Toronto though.
What does Grant have to do with DeRozen? One we already had, cost controlled. The other is a free agent. We could have had both if DeRozen was willing to sign here. And btw, he's made it clear he's resigning in TOR.
I'm fine with adding Rose.. if Noah is a short term deal that's fine too. To me, the bottom line will always be how we're going to build a team that can actually compete and come out of the East, though. I don't want to get stuck in purgatory again where we're not bad enough for lotto picks and not good enough to get past Cleveland.
Rose-Lee-Melo-JP-Noah, barring injury and with a decent bench, is a playoff team this year with more cap space available next year. I think that's closer to contender than purgatory.
It is, but how does it go from "close" to a contender to an actual contender? Can we actually keep Rose long-term and think he's going to stay healthy enough? I think KP is going to keep getting better and be in legit "star" territory in 2 years time but by then Melo is going to get closer to dead weight.
1 year deal-BRILLIANT
2 year deal-Great deal
3 year deal-I'm a little concerned, but we can live with it
4 year deal-Ok, this is too much risk considering our current flexibility.
I agree with this 100% I'll wait for the official numbers before I freak out
the "same old Knicks" haven't made one move indicative of the same old knicks in a while. Rose has one year...etc etc.
Trading a young piece and a good role playing starter for an oft injured (probably fading) star has a lot of same old Knicks ring to it.
This is such a reach. People are trying so hard to fit this narrative, but it's just false. First off, Rose has 1 year on his deal. 1 freakin year. Same ole Knicks would trade for someone that has 7 years because the contra wanted to dump the salary. Secondly, we got a young player and a pick in return and Lopez will be replaced easily on Friday.
on rotoworld from this morning tells me that Phil is negotiating the years and won't go too long(I hope?)
The Knicks are reportedly interested in Bismack Biyombo if they are unable to sign Joakim Noah.
The Knicks are reportedly the front-runners to land Noah, but Biyombo is thought to be the Knicks Plan B if they are unable to land the former Defensive Player of the year. Biyombo's breakout playoff performance will be tantalizing for fantasy owners, but we'll have to wait and see where he lands before assessing his fantasy value for 2016-17.
Is some young asset which needs developing. At 24 you should be in your prime. They are unrelated offering my pick of the free agents.
Well then "everyone" is a fucking idiot. Your prime =/= 23 year old rookie season. If anyone is disappointed that Grant didnt come in as a 23 year old rookie and play with the polish and poise of a 27 year old 8 year vet, well then I dont care about that person's stupid opinion.
I'm fine with adding Rose.. if Noah is a short term deal that's fine too. To me, the bottom line will always be how we're going to build a team that can actually compete and come out of the East, though. I don't want to get stuck in purgatory again where we're not bad enough for lotto picks and not good enough to get past Cleveland.
Rose-Lee-Melo-JP-Noah, barring injury and with a decent bench, is a playoff team this year with more cap space available next year. I think that's closer to contender than purgatory.
It is, but how does it go from "close" to a contender to an actual contender? Can we actually keep Rose long-term and think he's going to stay healthy enough? I think KP is going to keep getting better and be in legit "star" territory in 2 years time but by then Melo is going to get closer to dead weight.
One injury to Lebron? One good FA period in 2017? KP takes the next steps?
It's definitely closer than the other options, which are basically projecting out 3-5 years to when KP is in his prime.
the "same old Knicks" haven't made one move indicative of the same old knicks in a while. Rose has one year...etc etc.
Trading a young piece and a good role playing starter for an oft injured (probably fading) star has a lot of same old Knicks ring to it.
This is such a reach. People are trying so hard to fit this narrative, but it's just false. First off, Rose has 1 year on his deal. 1 freakin year. Same ole Knicks would trade for someone that has 7 years because the contra wanted to dump the salary. Secondly, we got a young player and a pick in return and Lopez will be replaced easily on Friday.
I dont agree. A number of people here dont agree. And a lot of articles written about the trade dont agree. But I'll leave it at that since we've debated the Rose trade to death.
The Knicks past has scarred most of us that we assume the worst. You see that they trade for a former superstar that has red flags and you assume it fits the same description as the many deals that have killed us in the past....Rice, Marbury, Curry, Francis, Zack Randolph and on and on and on.
The difference is that we didn't give up any picks(we actually got a pick) and we didn't give up any big pieces. If you want to argue that you think Grant will be a good player, fine, but he's still not a major piece. I'd bet he didn't have much trade value to begin with.
The biggest difference is that Rose isn't going to cripple us long term. He's an expiring contract, unlike all of those bad trades of the past.
with an option for the 3rd year. Hopefully it will be a team option. Can they do something similar to baseball...team option with a buyout if they don't pick it up?
Year 1-16 million
Year 2-20 million
year 3-Team option for 22 million(5 million buyout if not exercised)
Phil is negotiating the years and Noah ends up with 3 years with a player option... Phil sucks as a negotiator.
Right. Short of Noah demanding a S&T so he can get a 5th year, 3+1 is literally the worst option for the team. It's worse than 3. And it's worse than 4.
with an option for the 3rd year. Hopefully it will be a team option. Can they do something similar to baseball...team option with a buyout if they don't pick it up?
Year 1-16 million
Year 2-20 million
year 3-Team option for 22 million(5 million buyout if not exercised)
Can they do something like that in bball?
No, you can't give any raise you want. I believe it's 7.5% a year either direction.
RE: RE: Drafting a player who is a pure pick and roll PG
then throwing him in the triangle, and expecting him to look like a finished product doesn't make sense. Fisher tried to implement a bit of pick and roll, and then Rambis took over and did nothing but try to save his own ass.
I don't disagree with any of this, but somewhat ironically, Grant started to really come on at the end of the year.
I'd be interested to know why you disagree. PG is probably the position affected most by playing in the triangle. He wouldn't be the first player ever to struggle with it at all.
The adjustment from playing on the ball to playing off it shouldn't be downplayed.
15ppg and 8 boards for a 34 year old last year. Why do you say he was terrible? I would have to check his Knicks stats. I don't remember much around him.
I've learned not to listen to the media when it comes to the knicks
The cool thing to do to get ratings is rip the knicks and say how shitty of a move they make is and things like that...
Knicks could sign lebron and they would rip the move, if knicks signed Durant they would say Durant is just after money and the knicks are not going anywhere...
It is the same narrative in every move, Phil got ripped for signing lopez and now he is getting ripped for trading him...
Stephen a basically said if Phil doesn't sign Durant he would have failed...
Lebatard just ripped the knicks for an hour saying they suck and will do nothing meanwhile his heat are going to be fading fast
RE: RE: RE: Drafting a player who is a pure pick and roll PG
then throwing him in the triangle, and expecting him to look like a finished product doesn't make sense. Fisher tried to implement a bit of pick and roll, and then Rambis took over and did nothing but try to save his own ass.
I don't disagree with any of this, but somewhat ironically, Grant started to really come on at the end of the year.
I'd be interested to know why you disagree. PG is probably the position affected most by playing in the triangle. He wouldn't be the first player ever to struggle with it at all.
The adjustment from playing on the ball to playing off it shouldn't be downplayed.
Read it again. It was a double negative. I do not disagree with your statement.
The Knicks past has scarred most of us that we assume the worst. You see that they trade for a former superstar that has red flags and you assume it fits the same description as the many deals that have killed us in the past....Rice, Marbury, Curry, Francis, Zack Randolph and on and on and on.
The difference is that we didn't give up any picks(we actually got a pick) and we didn't give up any big pieces. If you want to argue that you think Grant will be a good player, fine, but he's still not a major piece. I'd bet he didn't have much trade value to begin with.
The biggest difference is that Rose isn't going to cripple us long term. He's an expiring contract, unlike all of those bad trades of the past.
You cant say Grant wont be a major piece.
I dont get why everyone is so happy about Rose just being signed for one year. That's a DOWNSIDE. I'd be happier if he was signed for 2 years, maybe 3. There is runaway inflation in the NBA. His one year deal limits the upside of the trade.
The problem with trading for Francis, McDyess etc. wasnt the minutia of their contract lengths. It was the reality of trading young/cost controlled assets (picks, players) for guys who were once huge stars but were already felled by injury when we got them. If you dont see that parallels with the Rose trade at all then you're the one who is stretching to define recent Knicks history as unrelated to this trade.
RE: RE: I'm going to guess that it will be a 2 year deal
with an option for the 3rd year. Hopefully it will be a team option. Can they do something similar to baseball...team option with a buyout if they don't pick it up?
Year 1-16 million
Year 2-20 million
year 3-Team option for 22 million(5 million buyout if not exercised)
Can they do something like that in bball?
No, you can't give any raise you want. I believe it's 7.5% a year either direction.
I meant more specifically the buyout, not necessarily the amount of the raise which really doesn't matter.
The Knicks past has scarred most of us that we assume the worst. You see that they trade for a former superstar that has red flags and you assume it fits the same description as the many deals that have killed us in the past....Rice, Marbury, Curry, Francis, Zack Randolph and on and on and on.
The difference is that we didn't give up any picks(we actually got a pick) and we didn't give up any big pieces. If you want to argue that you think Grant will be a good player, fine, but he's still not a major piece. I'd bet he didn't have much trade value to begin with.
The biggest difference is that Rose isn't going to cripple us long term. He's an expiring contract, unlike all of those bad trades of the past.
You cant say Grant wont be a major piece.
I dont get why everyone is so happy about Rose just being signed for one year. That's a DOWNSIDE. I'd be happier if he was signed for 2 years, maybe 3. There is runaway inflation in the NBA. His one year deal limits the upside of the trade.
The problem with trading for Francis, McDyess etc. wasnt the minutia of their contract lengths. It was the reality of trading young/cost controlled assets (picks, players) for guys who were once huge stars but were already felled by injury when we got them. If you dont see that parallels with the Rose trade at all then you're the one who is stretching to define recent Knicks history as unrelated to this trade.
I never said Grant won't ever be a major piece. That's like me telling you that you can't say Holiday and the 2nd rounder won't ever be a major piece. All I am saying is that he's not a major piece now. He's still a young prospect with upside(somewhat limited) that I don't believe had a lot of trade value.
1. He's going to be motivated to get another deal.
2. He gets a 1 year tryout and then we can hold his rights.
3. There are a few top level PG's available in FA next year.
The Knicks past has scarred most of us that we assume the worst. You see that they trade for a former superstar that has red flags and you assume it fits the same description as the many deals that have killed us in the past....Rice, Marbury, Curry, Francis, Zack Randolph and on and on and on.
The difference is that we didn't give up any picks(we actually got a pick) and we didn't give up any big pieces. If you want to argue that you think Grant will be a good player, fine, but he's still not a major piece. I'd bet he didn't have much trade value to begin with.
The biggest difference is that Rose isn't going to cripple us long term. He's an expiring contract, unlike all of those bad trades of the past.
You cant say Grant wont be a major piece.
I dont get why everyone is so happy about Rose just being signed for one year. That's a DOWNSIDE. I'd be happier if he was signed for 2 years, maybe 3. There is runaway inflation in the NBA. His one year deal limits the upside of the trade.
The problem with trading for Francis, McDyess etc. wasnt the minutia of their contract lengths. It was the reality of trading young/cost controlled assets (picks, players) for guys who were once huge stars but were already felled by injury when we got them. If you dont see that parallels with the Rose trade at all then you're the one who is stretching to define recent Knicks history as unrelated to this trade.
I never said Grant won't ever be a major piece. That's like me telling you that you can't say Holiday and the 2nd rounder won't ever be a major piece. All I am saying is that he's not a major piece now. He's still a young prospect with upside(somewhat limited) that I don't believe had a lot of trade value.
You literally said "he's still not a major piece".
My biggest fear is actually Rose having a really good year. Because then it'll lead to us giving him a max to stay and he'll probably wind up getting hurt again beyond the point of "well, no big deal, it was just a short term commitment"
The fact of the matter is, you build NBA rosters around 3 maybe 4 guys, and everyone else is pretty interchangeable. You can find guys like Grant and Lopez easier than someone like Rose, even if he isn't his old self.
He's a prospect that needs to get a lot better. There is no guarantee he will.
In the context of your argument, that's a very silly point. By the same token, all draft pieces are not a major piece because theyre not even players, they're just a right to select a player in the future. How then were you differentiating Grant from a draft pick when you said:
Quote:
The difference is that we didn't give up any picks(we actually got a pick) and we didn't give up any big pieces. If you want to argue that you think Grant will be a good player, fine, but he's still not a major piece. I'd bet he didn't have much trade value to begin with.
I dont get the efforts to minimize the give for Rose. Unless Chicago is stupid, it stands to reason that either (1) Rose had no value because he's shit, or (2) Chicago got a valuable return for him. The attempt to portray the Rose trade as us getting a very good player and giving nothing of significant value (and argument I attribute to several posters, so this isnt Keith specific) is just fantasy.
But Deej, by the same logic shouldnt your love of Grant and Lopez prove that Rose has some value? Yes, I agree he has value. I think it was a dumb bet for the Knicks though.
One would think the obviously leading candidate is OKC
for the 1+1 deal. You remain at worst the #2 team in the western conference, you have another year with Westbrook, and you can make the most money staying in a place you're on record as considering to be home.
The maximum potential dollar value is significantly more if he stays in OKC.
RE: One would think the obviously leading candidate is OKC
for the 1+1 deal. You remain at worst the #2 team in the western conference, you have another year with Westbrook, and you can make the most money staying in a place you're on record as considering to be home.
The maximum potential dollar value is significantly more if he stays in OKC.
Yes, although there is talk they're taking a run at Horford. If they can move Kanter for no significant salary in return (I think fairly easily in this market), it's really doable. I think it's just Kanter and either waiving Ilyasova or not signing Waiters or if they can get a Singler buyer.
If Horford goes there Durant may just reup long term and call it a day. That team is the best in the NBA. It's a fucking powerhouse. Adams-Horford-Durant-Oladipo-Westbrook with Payne, Ilyasova, and others off the bench? Just yikes.
There is no effort to minimize what we gave Chicago
because we didn't give them much. Grant is certainly not a major piece in any trade. He barely played for 3/4 of the season and showed flashes that he will progress to be a rotational player.
because we didn't give them much. Grant is certainly not a major piece in any trade. He barely played for 3/4 of the season and showed flashes that he will progress to be a rotational player.
Again, we got back a young player and a pick.
You keep trying to act as if a second round pick- which can be easily bought and a d league player are any kind of asset but a guy who was the 19th pick in the draft is meaningless?
Minimal is what I would use. He had a year in the league to see what he was and he showed to be extremely raw and limited, although he certainly has some talents.
I keep bringing up the 2nd rounder AND Holiday to refute that this is the same ole Knicks.
His team was undeniably worse with him on the floor the off. Those who think Rose is an all star type PG are in for a rude rude awakening in a few months. There is no big 3 here and the odds of him regaining his old form are very slim.
Minimal is what I would use. He had a year in the league to see what he was and he showed to be extremely raw and limited, although he certainly has some talents.
I keep bringing up the 2nd rounder AND Holiday to refute that this is the same ole Knicks.
But Holiday and a 2nd round pick are the definition of meaningless. It doesn't refute anyhing.
If he isn't you let him expire and move on
My point to you wasnt an evaluation of Grant. It was a disagreement with your statement that they havent sacrificed their future "one bit". I dont know how you could say that unless you're declaring Grant a bust after one season.
Bigger picture I think the people who say Grant showed nothing are being foolish. It's that instant gratification element that hurts our ability to team build.
That would be terrible. That's essentially a 4 year commitment. Why is Noah walking away from 18 million going into his age 35 season?
You could make a case that Holiday is a better player than Grant.
What does Grant have to do with DeRozen? One we already had, cost controlled. The other is a free agent. We could have had both if DeRozen was willing to sign here. And btw, he's made it clear he's resigning in TOR.
I think that's too much risk for my taste. Do they do mutual options in the NBA? Both player and team option?
Trading a young piece and a good role playing starter for an oft injured (probably fading) star has a lot of same old Knicks ring to it.
Quote:
I'm fine with adding Rose.. if Noah is a short term deal that's fine too. To me, the bottom line will always be how we're going to build a team that can actually compete and come out of the East, though. I don't want to get stuck in purgatory again where we're not bad enough for lotto picks and not good enough to get past Cleveland.
Rose-Lee-Melo-JP-Noah, barring injury and with a decent bench, is a playoff team this year with more cap space available next year. I think that's closer to contender than purgatory.
It is, but how does it go from "close" to a contender to an actual contender? Can we actually keep Rose long-term and think he's going to stay healthy enough? I think KP is going to keep getting better and be in legit "star" territory in 2 years time but by then Melo is going to get closer to dead weight.
2 year deal-Great deal
3 year deal-I'm a little concerned, but we can live with it
4 year deal-Ok, this is too much risk considering our current flexibility.
I agree with this 100% I'll wait for the official numbers before I freak out
Quote:
the "same old Knicks" haven't made one move indicative of the same old knicks in a while. Rose has one year...etc etc.
Trading a young piece and a good role playing starter for an oft injured (probably fading) star has a lot of same old Knicks ring to it.
This is such a reach. People are trying so hard to fit this narrative, but it's just false. First off, Rose has 1 year on his deal. 1 freakin year. Same ole Knicks would trade for someone that has 7 years because the contra wanted to dump the salary. Secondly, we got a young player and a pick in return and Lopez will be replaced easily on Friday.
The Knicks are reportedly interested in Bismack Biyombo if they are unable to sign Joakim Noah.
The Knicks are reportedly the front-runners to land Noah, but Biyombo is thought to be the Knicks Plan B if they are unable to land the former Defensive Player of the year. Biyombo's breakout playoff performance will be tantalizing for fantasy owners, but we'll have to wait and see where he lands before assessing his fantasy value for 2016-17.
Well then "everyone" is a fucking idiot. Your prime =/= 23 year old rookie season. If anyone is disappointed that Grant didnt come in as a 23 year old rookie and play with the polish and poise of a 27 year old 8 year vet, well then I dont care about that person's stupid opinion.
Quote:
seems to really enjoy player options. My guess is they do 3 with a player option for no. 4.
That would be terrible. That's essentially a 4 year commitment. Why is Noah walking away from 18 million going into his age 35 season?
Not saying he would. That's just my prediction.
Quote:
In comment 13015401 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
I'm fine with adding Rose.. if Noah is a short term deal that's fine too. To me, the bottom line will always be how we're going to build a team that can actually compete and come out of the East, though. I don't want to get stuck in purgatory again where we're not bad enough for lotto picks and not good enough to get past Cleveland.
Rose-Lee-Melo-JP-Noah, barring injury and with a decent bench, is a playoff team this year with more cap space available next year. I think that's closer to contender than purgatory.
It is, but how does it go from "close" to a contender to an actual contender? Can we actually keep Rose long-term and think he's going to stay healthy enough? I think KP is going to keep getting better and be in legit "star" territory in 2 years time but by then Melo is going to get closer to dead weight.
One injury to Lebron? One good FA period in 2017? KP takes the next steps?
It's definitely closer than the other options, which are basically projecting out 3-5 years to when KP is in his prime.
Quote:
In comment 13015418 djm said:
Quote:
the "same old Knicks" haven't made one move indicative of the same old knicks in a while. Rose has one year...etc etc.
Trading a young piece and a good role playing starter for an oft injured (probably fading) star has a lot of same old Knicks ring to it.
This is such a reach. People are trying so hard to fit this narrative, but it's just false. First off, Rose has 1 year on his deal. 1 freakin year. Same ole Knicks would trade for someone that has 7 years because the contra wanted to dump the salary. Secondly, we got a young player and a pick in return and Lopez will be replaced easily on Friday.
I dont agree. A number of people here dont agree. And a lot of articles written about the trade dont agree. But I'll leave it at that since we've debated the Rose trade to death.
The difference is that we didn't give up any picks(we actually got a pick) and we didn't give up any big pieces. If you want to argue that you think Grant will be a good player, fine, but he's still not a major piece. I'd bet he didn't have much trade value to begin with.
The biggest difference is that Rose isn't going to cripple us long term. He's an expiring contract, unlike all of those bad trades of the past.
Year 1-16 million
Year 2-20 million
year 3-Team option for 22 million(5 million buyout if not exercised)
Can they do something like that in bball?
Right. Short of Noah demanding a S&T so he can get a 5th year, 3+1 is literally the worst option for the team. It's worse than 3. And it's worse than 4.
He was terrible......for the Knicks.
Year 1-16 million
Year 2-20 million
year 3-Team option for 22 million(5 million buyout if not exercised)
Can they do something like that in bball?
No, you can't give any raise you want. I believe it's 7.5% a year either direction.
Quote:
then throwing him in the triangle, and expecting him to look like a finished product doesn't make sense. Fisher tried to implement a bit of pick and roll, and then Rambis took over and did nothing but try to save his own ass.
I don't disagree with any of this, but somewhat ironically, Grant started to really come on at the end of the year.
I'd be interested to know why you disagree. PG is probably the position affected most by playing in the triangle. He wouldn't be the first player ever to struggle with it at all.
The adjustment from playing on the ball to playing off it shouldn't be downplayed.
Knicks could sign lebron and they would rip the move, if knicks signed Durant they would say Durant is just after money and the knicks are not going anywhere...
It is the same narrative in every move, Phil got ripped for signing lopez and now he is getting ripped for trading him...
Stephen a basically said if Phil doesn't sign Durant he would have failed...
Lebatard just ripped the knicks for an hour saying they suck and will do nothing meanwhile his heat are going to be fading fast
Quote:
In comment 13015388 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
then throwing him in the triangle, and expecting him to look like a finished product doesn't make sense. Fisher tried to implement a bit of pick and roll, and then Rambis took over and did nothing but try to save his own ass.
I don't disagree with any of this, but somewhat ironically, Grant started to really come on at the end of the year.
I'd be interested to know why you disagree. PG is probably the position affected most by playing in the triangle. He wouldn't be the first player ever to struggle with it at all.
The adjustment from playing on the ball to playing off it shouldn't be downplayed.
Read it again. It was a double negative. I do not disagree with your statement.
The difference is that we didn't give up any picks(we actually got a pick) and we didn't give up any big pieces. If you want to argue that you think Grant will be a good player, fine, but he's still not a major piece. I'd bet he didn't have much trade value to begin with.
The biggest difference is that Rose isn't going to cripple us long term. He's an expiring contract, unlike all of those bad trades of the past.
You cant say Grant wont be a major piece.
I dont get why everyone is so happy about Rose just being signed for one year. That's a DOWNSIDE. I'd be happier if he was signed for 2 years, maybe 3. There is runaway inflation in the NBA. His one year deal limits the upside of the trade.
The problem with trading for Francis, McDyess etc. wasnt the minutia of their contract lengths. It was the reality of trading young/cost controlled assets (picks, players) for guys who were once huge stars but were already felled by injury when we got them. If you dont see that parallels with the Rose trade at all then you're the one who is stretching to define recent Knicks history as unrelated to this trade.
Quote:
with an option for the 3rd year. Hopefully it will be a team option. Can they do something similar to baseball...team option with a buyout if they don't pick it up?
Year 1-16 million
Year 2-20 million
year 3-Team option for 22 million(5 million buyout if not exercised)
Can they do something like that in bball?
No, you can't give any raise you want. I believe it's 7.5% a year either direction.
I meant more specifically the buyout, not necessarily the amount of the raise which really doesn't matter.
Quote:
The Knicks past has scarred most of us that we assume the worst. You see that they trade for a former superstar that has red flags and you assume it fits the same description as the many deals that have killed us in the past....Rice, Marbury, Curry, Francis, Zack Randolph and on and on and on.
The difference is that we didn't give up any picks(we actually got a pick) and we didn't give up any big pieces. If you want to argue that you think Grant will be a good player, fine, but he's still not a major piece. I'd bet he didn't have much trade value to begin with.
The biggest difference is that Rose isn't going to cripple us long term. He's an expiring contract, unlike all of those bad trades of the past.
You cant say Grant wont be a major piece.
I dont get why everyone is so happy about Rose just being signed for one year. That's a DOWNSIDE. I'd be happier if he was signed for 2 years, maybe 3. There is runaway inflation in the NBA. His one year deal limits the upside of the trade.
The problem with trading for Francis, McDyess etc. wasnt the minutia of their contract lengths. It was the reality of trading young/cost controlled assets (picks, players) for guys who were once huge stars but were already felled by injury when we got them. If you dont see that parallels with the Rose trade at all then you're the one who is stretching to define recent Knicks history as unrelated to this trade.
I never said Grant won't ever be a major piece. That's like me telling you that you can't say Holiday and the 2nd rounder won't ever be a major piece. All I am saying is that he's not a major piece now. He's still a young prospect with upside(somewhat limited) that I don't believe had a lot of trade value.
2. He gets a 1 year tryout and then we can hold his rights.
3. There are a few top level PG's available in FA next year.
Quote:
In comment 13015445 Keith said:
Quote:
The Knicks past has scarred most of us that we assume the worst. You see that they trade for a former superstar that has red flags and you assume it fits the same description as the many deals that have killed us in the past....Rice, Marbury, Curry, Francis, Zack Randolph and on and on and on.
The difference is that we didn't give up any picks(we actually got a pick) and we didn't give up any big pieces. If you want to argue that you think Grant will be a good player, fine, but he's still not a major piece. I'd bet he didn't have much trade value to begin with.
The biggest difference is that Rose isn't going to cripple us long term. He's an expiring contract, unlike all of those bad trades of the past.
You cant say Grant wont be a major piece.
I dont get why everyone is so happy about Rose just being signed for one year. That's a DOWNSIDE. I'd be happier if he was signed for 2 years, maybe 3. There is runaway inflation in the NBA. His one year deal limits the upside of the trade.
The problem with trading for Francis, McDyess etc. wasnt the minutia of their contract lengths. It was the reality of trading young/cost controlled assets (picks, players) for guys who were once huge stars but were already felled by injury when we got them. If you dont see that parallels with the Rose trade at all then you're the one who is stretching to define recent Knicks history as unrelated to this trade.
I never said Grant won't ever be a major piece. That's like me telling you that you can't say Holiday and the 2nd rounder won't ever be a major piece. All I am saying is that he's not a major piece now. He's still a young prospect with upside(somewhat limited) that I don't believe had a lot of trade value.
You literally said "he's still not a major piece".
You know that would happen to us.
The fact of the matter is, you build NBA rosters around 3 maybe 4 guys, and everyone else is pretty interchangeable. You can find guys like Grant and Lopez easier than someone like Rose, even if he isn't his old self.
In the context of your argument, that's a very silly point. By the same token, all draft pieces are not a major piece because theyre not even players, they're just a right to select a player in the future. How then were you differentiating Grant from a draft pick when you said:
I dont get the efforts to minimize the give for Rose. Unless Chicago is stupid, it stands to reason that either (1) Rose had no value because he's shit, or (2) Chicago got a valuable return for him. The attempt to portray the Rose trade as us getting a very good player and giving nothing of significant value (and argument I attribute to several posters, so this isnt Keith specific) is just fantasy.
But Deej, by the same logic shouldnt your love of Grant and Lopez prove that Rose has some value? Yes, I agree he has value. I think it was a dumb bet for the Knicks though.
The maximum potential dollar value is significantly more if he stays in OKC.
The maximum potential dollar value is significantly more if he stays in OKC.
Yes, although there is talk they're taking a run at Horford. If they can move Kanter for no significant salary in return (I think fairly easily in this market), it's really doable. I think it's just Kanter and either waiving Ilyasova or not signing Waiters or if they can get a Singler buyer.
If Horford goes there Durant may just reup long term and call it a day. That team is the best in the NBA. It's a fucking powerhouse. Adams-Horford-Durant-Oladipo-Westbrook with Payne, Ilyasova, and others off the bench? Just yikes.
Again, we got back a young player and a pick.
- Offense to this point is the same as last year, full triangle.
Again, we got back a young player and a pick.
You keep trying to act as if a second round pick- which can be easily bought and a d league player are any kind of asset but a guy who was the 19th pick in the draft is meaningless?
I keep bringing up the 2nd rounder AND Holiday to refute that this is the same ole Knicks.
I keep bringing up the 2nd rounder AND Holiday to refute that this is the same ole Knicks.
But Holiday and a 2nd round pick are the definition of meaningless. It doesn't refute anyhing.