NardDogNation wrote:H1AND1 wrote:NardDogNation wrote:NumberTwoPencil wrote:. . . Curry & Thompson backcourt . . . Couple problems with that. Thompson was drafted two years after Curry. Also, I can't imagine the Knicks sticking with either of those guys for long. Curry was pretty good his rookie year but he was still learning PG (can you imagine him learning how to be a PG in NY?) and those ankle injuries were a serious concern.
In short, the Knicks might have been able to trade up on draft night to get Curry but I suspect it would have been downhill from there.
So we couldn't have traded David Lee in a sign and trade deal in 2010 for an unprotected 1st in 2011 from the Warriors (i.e. Klay Thompson)? He had established himself as a perennial 20-10 big man and all-star by that point, so I definitely think it was feasible had we not had old man running the show.
As for Curry, all we should've done that season was tank. We had the same record as the Warriors that season but had the tie breaker with them, which gave them more ping pong balls and a pick that was one slot higher than us. Had we dumped Nate Robinson and Jared Jefferies to Sacramento, we would've been bad enough for that to have happened. Whatsmore is that we never would've had to trade future picks in that horrible McGrady deal.
But you're right, we probably would have not been patient enough to develop them. I probably been one of the first guys advocating to sell Curry high when those ankle injuries happened.
David Lee was gonna sign with GS and had all the leverage I highly doubt they would've given up an unprotected first in a sign and trade.
...if that were the case, why was a sign and trade needed? He was an unrestricted free agent; he could have gone their without our help.
lee got 6 years instead of 5 if he had gone outright, and the knicks got a couple of bodies/pick
sidsanders wrote:NardDogNation wrote:H1AND1 wrote:NardDogNation wrote:NumberTwoPencil wrote:. . . Curry & Thompson backcourt . . . Couple problems with that. Thompson was drafted two years after Curry. Also, I can't imagine the Knicks sticking with either of those guys for long. Curry was pretty good his rookie year but he was still learning PG (can you imagine him learning how to be a PG in NY?) and those ankle injuries were a serious concern.
In short, the Knicks might have been able to trade up on draft night to get Curry but I suspect it would have been downhill from there.
So we couldn't have traded David Lee in a sign and trade deal in 2010 for an unprotected 1st in 2011 from the Warriors (i.e. Klay Thompson)? He had established himself as a perennial 20-10 big man and all-star by that point, so I definitely think it was feasible had we not had old man running the show.
As for Curry, all we should've done that season was tank. We had the same record as the Warriors that season but had the tie breaker with them, which gave them more ping pong balls and a pick that was one slot higher than us. Had we dumped Nate Robinson and Jared Jefferies to Sacramento, we would've been bad enough for that to have happened. Whatsmore is that we never would've had to trade future picks in that horrible McGrady deal.
But you're right, we probably would have not been patient enough to develop them. I probably been one of the first guys advocating to sell Curry high when those ankle injuries happened.
David Lee was gonna sign with GS and had all the leverage I highly doubt they would've given up an unprotected first in a sign and trade.
...if that were the case, why was a sign and trade needed? He was an unrestricted free agent; he could have gone their without our help.
lee got 6 years instead of 5 if he had gone outright, and the knicks got a couple of bodies/pick
We took care of him. We needed the cap space for Amare. It was a win-win. We have a reputation of not screwing over our players.
sidsanders wrote:NardDogNation wrote:H1AND1 wrote:NardDogNation wrote:NumberTwoPencil wrote:. . . Curry & Thompson backcourt . . . Couple problems with that. Thompson was drafted two years after Curry. Also, I can't imagine the Knicks sticking with either of those guys for long. Curry was pretty good his rookie year but he was still learning PG (can you imagine him learning how to be a PG in NY?) and those ankle injuries were a serious concern.
In short, the Knicks might have been able to trade up on draft night to get Curry but I suspect it would have been downhill from there.
So we couldn't have traded David Lee in a sign and trade deal in 2010 for an unprotected 1st in 2011 from the Warriors (i.e. Klay Thompson)? He had established himself as a perennial 20-10 big man and all-star by that point, so I definitely think it was feasible had we not had old man running the show.
As for Curry, all we should've done that season was tank. We had the same record as the Warriors that season but had the tie breaker with them, which gave them more ping pong balls and a pick that was one slot higher than us. Had we dumped Nate Robinson and Jared Jefferies to Sacramento, we would've been bad enough for that to have happened. Whatsmore is that we never would've had to trade future picks in that horrible McGrady deal.
But you're right, we probably would have not been patient enough to develop them. I probably been one of the first guys advocating to sell Curry high when those ankle injuries happened.
David Lee was gonna sign with GS and had all the leverage I highly doubt they would've given up an unprotected first in a sign and trade.
...if that were the case, why was a sign and trade needed? He was an unrestricted free agent; he could have gone their without our help.
lee got 6 years instead of 5 if he had gone outright, and the knicks got a couple of bodies/pick
They didn't have the money to take him on outright, hence the sign and trade.
NardDogNation wrote:sidsanders wrote:NardDogNation wrote:H1AND1 wrote:NardDogNation wrote:NumberTwoPencil wrote:. . . Curry & Thompson backcourt . . . Couple problems with that. Thompson was drafted two years after Curry. Also, I can't imagine the Knicks sticking with either of those guys for long. Curry was pretty good his rookie year but he was still learning PG (can you imagine him learning how to be a PG in NY?) and those ankle injuries were a serious concern.
In short, the Knicks might have been able to trade up on draft night to get Curry but I suspect it would have been downhill from there.
So we couldn't have traded David Lee in a sign and trade deal in 2010 for an unprotected 1st in 2011 from the Warriors (i.e. Klay Thompson)? He had established himself as a perennial 20-10 big man and all-star by that point, so I definitely think it was feasible had we not had old man running the show.
As for Curry, all we should've done that season was tank. We had the same record as the Warriors that season but had the tie breaker with them, which gave them more ping pong balls and a pick that was one slot higher than us. Had we dumped Nate Robinson and Jared Jefferies to Sacramento, we would've been bad enough for that to have happened. Whatsmore is that we never would've had to trade future picks in that horrible McGrady deal.
But you're right, we probably would have not been patient enough to develop them. I probably been one of the first guys advocating to sell Curry high when those ankle injuries happened.
David Lee was gonna sign with GS and had all the leverage I highly doubt they would've given up an unprotected first in a sign and trade.
...if that were the case, why was a sign and trade needed? He was an unrestricted free agent; he could have gone their without our help.
lee got 6 years instead of 5 if he had gone outright, and the knicks got a couple of bodies/pick
They didn't have the money to take him on outright, hence the sign and trade.
Oh see I remember that they did have the money to sign him but they can to a mutual agreement with the Knicks so they could give him the extra year and the knicks got back a couple minor pieces.
Derozan isn't going to have surgery. Listed as week to week. Sounds like the raps are hoping to have him back in early 2015.
Boston-Wash sickest game of the year.
Dion Waiters with 26 points and 4 assists tonight.
mreinman wrote:Dion Waiters with 26 points and 4 assists tonight.
You LaMarcus Aldridge him
Utah beat the Spurs tonight.
NYKBocker wrote:F500ONE wrote:Rockets want a Deal by December 19thhttp://sports.yahoo.com/news/sources--ro...
$8.4mil TPE, it's unfortunate it's Morey and Houston though
JR Smith for the exception and Montiejunas?
Not a chance
mreinman wrote:Dion Waiters with 26 points and 4 assists tonight.
I waived him last week on my fantasy team. He always seems to put up big numbers when the heat is on him.
F500ONE wrote:Rockets want a Deal by December 19thhttp://sports.yahoo.com/news/sources--ro...
$8.4mil TPE, it's unfortunate it's Morey and Houston though
I wonder if they would send back a pick for Sam. He comes off the cap at the end of the season and could fill in for D12. I think Sam with his easy to move contract is gone by the deadline.
yellowboy90 wrote:ak47 to the 76ers
Guttierez probably gets waived. Too bad.
CrushAlot wrote:yellowboy90 wrote:ak47 to the 76ers
Guttierez probably gets waived. Too bad.
Nets just C-Blocked Phil
Probably stuck with Amar'e for the duration for sure now
F500ONE wrote:CrushAlot wrote:yellowboy90 wrote:ak47 to the 76ers
Guttierez probably gets waived. Too bad.
Nets just C-Blocked Phil
Probably stuck with Amar'e for the duration for sure now
Nope, Amare can still be traded for Jason Richardson.
looks like kyrie is going to miss some major time
knicks1248 wrote:looks like kyrie is going to miss some major time
Not watching the game but it was just posted on twitter that he would return.
Rachel Nichols @Rachel__Nichols · 3h3 hours ago
Kyrie Irving officially has left knee contusion, will return. Just told me "I'm good"
West is so stacked with really top teams. OKC on a mission to get back in the hunt.
