Knicks · Did the Owner REALLY Sacrifice Too Much for Melo? (page 1)

Via Sheridan Hoops

None of us can tell the future. We don’t know if things will work out.

But consider that almighty “C” word: Ceiling.

It dares you to imagine the best-case scenario. And if you do that, with this Knicks roster, they’re easily better than the pre-Melo version.

That doesn’t mean that the Knicks didn’t overpay for Anthony. They did.

But at the end of the day, in pro basketball, you trade five quarters for a dollar bill, because the pieces required to make that dollar bill worth more are a dime a dozen.

In less than one year, Glen Grunwald proved that.

You may have also missed another age-old adage being proven: Real recognizes real.

Tyson Chandler, J.R. Smith, Baron Davis, Steve Novak and Mike Bibby all came to play in New York because they believed that they could help StoudeMelo get to the next level.

Few, if any of them would have signed on in New York if not for James Dolan doing whatever it took to get Anthony.

The team is .500 and since the deal the record is what it is. But the ROSTER is molding into one of the deepest teams in the NBA, after just 36 games this season.

There is SOME justification for the owner’s reported interference based on what this bench COULD become and what they did the other night against the Cavs.

Let’s see if it continues.

Maybe we'll never really know the answer.

The attraction of StatMelo if what actually got players here, is the very thing that might be wrong with the team.

To me, Chandler/Lin is the big ticket now.

I've moved on but this is a bad analysis. Without the Melo trade, the Knicks would have had the assets to get Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, or any other available 2 way star over the next few years.

Nalod wrote:Maybe we'll never really know the answer.

The attraction of StatMelo if what actually got players here, is the very thing that might be wrong with the team.To me, Chandler/Lin is the big ticket now.

If that Combo attracted Tyson Chandler, JR and Baron Davis here, there is certainly nothing wrong with that....

Even a dead horse gets tired of saying " ouch" at some point.

loweyecue wrote:Even a dead horse gets tired of saying " ouch" at some point.

It's not about the dead horse, it's about the guy who is beating it, and if he is not done taking whacks, then it's still validificated.

Bonn1997 wrote:I've moved on but this is a bad analysis. Without the Melo trade, the Knicks would have had the assets to get Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, or any other available 2 way star over the next few years.

Co-sign, we could have had a dynasty!!!!!!!

There is no way this team could have Chandler stuck in China, Stat a shell of himself, Felton over weight plus playing terribly, Mosgov regressing to a 10th man off the bench, with TD losing his stroke and Gallo out to some injury and praying the Dwight or Paul or Deron want to join a last place team .....................Lulz???

I still think Gallo will develop to be, at his peak, 0.96 of Dirk. That's Gallo = (Dirk)(.96) = .96Dirk.

Which is almost a whole Dirk, and that's good.

They may have sacrified too much, but they sacrified what was needed to get him. And players came to New York because Melo and Stoudemire were here. The current team is as good as it is because that trade was made. Lin was given a chance because this deal was made and there was no other PG in the equation. So when it is all said and done, however you spin it, it was the right move.

Lin, Fields, Anthony, Stoudemire, Chandler plus a strong bench is 100 times better than Felton, Fields, Gallo, Stoudemire, Turiaf. That is what matters to me. Lin, Melo, and Chandler are the core of a championship team for the next 5-7 years, and hopefully Stoudemire plays his way back into being an integral part of the core.

Knixkik wrote:They may have sacrified too much, but they sacrified what was needed to get him. And players came to New York because Melo and Stoudemire were here. The current team is as good as it is because that trade was made. Lin was given a chance because this deal was made and there was no other PG in the equation. So when it is all said and done, however you spin it, it was the right move.

Lin, Fields, Anthony, Stoudemire, Chandler plus a strong bench is 100 times better than Felton, Fields, Gallo, Stoudemire, Turiaf. That is what matters to me. Lin, Melo, and Chandler are the core of a championship team for the next 5-7 years, and hopefully Stoudemire plays his way back into being an integral part of the core.

The trade will and should be judged by how well Melo, Gallo, Moz, and the others play - not by some unknowable claims about who the Melo trade indirectly led to joining the team.

TripleThreat wrote:I think Chris Sheridan is running a private contest to see how many logical fallacies he can jam into a short op/ed piece.

Well put!

babyKnicks wrote:Via Sheridan Hoops

None of us can tell the future. We don’t know if things will work out.

But consider that almighty “C” word: Ceiling.

It dares you to imagine the best-case scenario. And if you do that, with this Knicks roster, they’re easily better than the pre-Melo version.

That doesn’t mean that the Knicks didn’t overpay for Anthony. They did.

But at the end of the day, in pro basketball, you trade five quarters for a dollar bill, because the pieces required to make that dollar bill worth more are a dime a dozen.

In less than one year, Glen Grunwald proved that.

You may have also missed another age-old adage being proven: Real recognizes real.

Tyson Chandler, J.R. Smith, Baron Davis, Steve Novak and Mike Bibby all came to play in New York because they believed that they could help StoudeMelo get to the next level.

Few, if any of them would have signed on in New York if not for James Dolan doing whatever it took to get Anthony.

The team is .500 and since the deal the record is what it is. But the ROSTER is molding into one of the deepest teams in the NBA, after just 36 games this season.

There is SOME justification for the owner’s reported interference based on what this bench COULD become and what they did the other night against the Cavs.

Let’s see if it continues.

least you could do is link it?

http://www.sheridanhoops.com/2012/03/02/...

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:They may have sacrified too much, but they sacrified what was needed to get him. And players came to New York because Melo and Stoudemire were here. The current team is as good as it is because that trade was made. Lin was given a chance because this deal was made and there was no other PG in the equation. So when it is all said and done, however you spin it, it was the right move.

Lin, Fields, Anthony, Stoudemire, Chandler plus a strong bench is 100 times better than Felton, Fields, Gallo, Stoudemire, Turiaf. That is what matters to me. Lin, Melo, and Chandler are the core of a championship team for the next 5-7 years, and hopefully Stoudemire plays his way back into being an integral part of the core.

The trade will and should be judged by how well Melo, Gallo, Moz, and the others play - not by some unknowable claims about who the Melo trade indirectly led to joining the team.

What do you mean? Who cares how they do on an individual basis. The goal is to win a championship. The deal should be judged on what the outcome is for each team. Does this deal make the Knicks and the Nuggets better when it is all said and done? Right now, the Knicks are a significantly better team than they were this time last season, that is the only way to judge a team, if they become better as a result of the trade and what follows.

Can you judge the deal the Hornets (a rebuilding team) made in trading Paul right now? Of course not. You judge the deal based on the rebuilding project that comes after. You judge a trade based on the overall impact on the team, not how good the players who are traded play from an individual basis, as you suggest.

TripleThreat wrote:moved Eddy Curry for some type of asset down the road and just held on.

I heard the list of suitors for Eddy Curry was enormous. And by "list of suitors" I mean "Arby's tab."

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:They may have sacrified too much, but they sacrified what was needed to get him. And players came to New York because Melo and Stoudemire were here. The current team is as good as it is because that trade was made. Lin was given a chance because this deal was made and there was no other PG in the equation. So when it is all said and done, however you spin it, it was the right move.

Lin, Fields, Anthony, Stoudemire, Chandler plus a strong bench is 100 times better than Felton, Fields, Gallo, Stoudemire, Turiaf. That is what matters to me. Lin, Melo, and Chandler are the core of a championship team for the next 5-7 years, and hopefully Stoudemire plays his way back into being an integral part of the core.

The trade will and should be judged by how well Melo, Gallo, Moz, and the others play - not by some unknowable claims about who the Melo trade indirectly led to joining the team.

Can't you add Chandler to that list? We essentially swapped Billups for Chandler. And, to me, Chandler alone is more of an impact player than everyone you listed, including Melo.

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:They may have sacrified too much, but they sacrified what was needed to get him. And players came to New York because Melo and Stoudemire were here. The current team is as good as it is because that trade was made. Lin was given a chance because this deal was made and there was no other PG in the equation. So when it is all said and done, however you spin it, it was the right move.

Lin, Fields, Anthony, Stoudemire, Chandler plus a strong bench is 100 times better than Felton, Fields, Gallo, Stoudemire, Turiaf. That is what matters to me. Lin, Melo, and Chandler are the core of a championship team for the next 5-7 years, and hopefully Stoudemire plays his way back into being an integral part of the core.

The trade will and should be judged by how well Melo, Gallo, Moz, and the others play - not by some unknowable claims about who the Melo trade indirectly led to joining the team.

Can't you add Chandler to that list? We essentially swapped Billups for Chandler. And, to me, Chandler alone is more of an impact player than everyone you listed, including Melo.

Of course we can. Every good player that we add over the next 5 years is because of the Melo trade.

What do you mean? Who cares how they do on an individual basis. The goal is to win a championship. The deal should be judged on what the outcome is for each team. Does this deal make the Knicks and the Nuggets better when it is all said and done? Right now, the Knicks are a significantly better team than they were this time last season, that is the only way to judge a team, if they become better as a result of the trade and what follows.

Can you judge the deal the Hornets (a rebuilding team) made in trading Paul right now? Of course not. You judge the deal based on the rebuilding project that comes after. You judge a trade based on the overall impact on the team, not how good the players who are traded play from an individual basis, as you suggest

It's interesting that you interpreted the phrase "how well the player plays" as meaning individual performance. It could just as easily mean how much he helps his team to win games.

Bonn1997 wrote:Of course we can. Every good player that we add over the next 5 years is because of the Melo trade.

So, snark aside, you're saying Chandler can not be considered as a direct pay-off from that trade?

Look, put the trade in a vacuum so that you will analyze it easier; be an engineer, not a mathematician.

In a vacuum, the trade was wack sauce.

Good things happened since the trade, but they cannot be attributed to the trade, which was wack sauce.

Just as easily as we are giving business now, we could be 10-26 and in a pile of garbage.

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Of course we can. Every good player that we add over the next 5 years is because of the Melo trade.

So, snark aside, you're saying Chandler can not be considered as a direct pay-off from that trade?

We'll never know. If we're gonna accept the claim that star players bring in other players, though, then Dwight Howard, Chris Paul, or whoever we used our assets to acquire would have brought in players too. Any inclusion of potential indirect effects of the Melo trade would have to include potential indirect effects of any other trade we used our assets on. (Clearly we're headed towards infinite paralysis if we start to bring in all feasible indirect effects.)

Bonn1997 wrote:

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:They may have sacrified too much, but they sacrified what was needed to get him. And players came to New York because Melo and Stoudemire were here. The current team is as good as it is because that trade was made. Lin was given a chance because this deal was made and there was no other PG in the equation. So when it is all said and done, however you spin it, it was the right move.

Lin, Fields, Anthony, Stoudemire, Chandler plus a strong bench is 100 times better than Felton, Fields, Gallo, Stoudemire, Turiaf. That is what matters to me. Lin, Melo, and Chandler are the core of a championship team for the next 5-7 years, and hopefully Stoudemire plays his way back into being an integral part of the core.

The trade will and should be judged by how well Melo, Gallo, Moz, and the others play - not by some unknowable claims about who the Melo trade indirectly led to joining the team.

Can't you add Chandler to that list? We essentially swapped Billups for Chandler. And, to me, Chandler alone is more of an impact player than everyone you listed, including Melo.

Of course we can. Every good player that we add over the next 5 years is because of the Melo trade.

What do you mean? Who cares how they do on an individual basis. The goal is to win a championship. The deal should be judged on what the outcome is for each team. Does this deal make the Knicks and the Nuggets better when it is all said and done? Right now, the Knicks are a significantly better team than they were this time last season, that is the only way to judge a team, if they become better as a result of the trade and what follows.

Can you judge the deal the Hornets (a rebuilding team) made in trading Paul right now? Of course not. You judge the deal based on the rebuilding project that comes after. You judge a trade based on the overall impact on the team, not how good the players who are traded play from an individual basis, as you suggest

It's interesting that you interpreted the phrase "how well the player plays" as meaning individual performance. It could just as easily mean how much he helps his team to win games.

I interpreted it exactly how it was said. Why didnt you say how much he helps the team? Is the team better as a result of the trade? That tells you if the trade is good. In this case the answer is yes.

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:They may have sacrified too much, but they sacrified what was needed to get him. And players came to New York because Melo and Stoudemire were here. The current team is as good as it is because that trade was made. Lin was given a chance because this deal was made and there was no other PG in the equation. So when it is all said and done, however you spin it, it was the right move.

Lin, Fields, Anthony, Stoudemire, Chandler plus a strong bench is 100 times better than Felton, Fields, Gallo, Stoudemire, Turiaf. That is what matters to me. Lin, Melo, and Chandler are the core of a championship team for the next 5-7 years, and hopefully Stoudemire plays his way back into being an integral part of the core.

The trade will and should be judged by how well Melo, Gallo, Moz, and the others play - not by some unknowable claims about who the Melo trade indirectly led to joining the team.

Can't you add Chandler to that list? We essentially swapped Billups for Chandler. And, to me, Chandler alone is more of an impact player than everyone you listed, including Melo.

Of course we can. Every good player that we add over the next 5 years is because of the Melo trade.

What do you mean? Who cares how they do on an individual basis. The goal is to win a championship. The deal should be judged on what the outcome is for each team. Does this deal make the Knicks and the Nuggets better when it is all said and done? Right now, the Knicks are a significantly better team than they were this time last season, that is the only way to judge a team, if they become better as a result of the trade and what follows.

Can you judge the deal the Hornets (a rebuilding team) made in trading Paul right now? Of course not. You judge the deal based on the rebuilding project that comes after. You judge a trade based on the overall impact on the team, not how good the players who are traded play from an individual basis, as you suggest

It's interesting that you interpreted the phrase "how well the player plays" as meaning individual performance. It could just as easily mean how much he helps his team to win games.

I interpreted it exactly how it was said. Why didnt you say how much he helps the team? Is the team better as a result of the trade? That tells you if the trade is good. In this case the answer is yes.

How well the player plays and how much he helps his team are the same thing. There's no such thing as playing well without helping your team.
Can you explain your conclusion that the team is a better *as a result of* the trade? Are we better than we would be if we'd used our assets to acquire Dwight Howard? Chris Paul? Some other player who becomes available in the near future? If for a moment we assume that our assets could not have been used to acquire anyone else (an assumption most seem stuck on), are we better *as a result of* the trade anyway? We're certainly playing well as a result of other decisions but the subject of discussion is the trade.