Knicks · How about Larkin and 1mm to the bucks (page 1)

For Walters. He should be afforded a chance to play. I'm sure his agent would love it he has no material value to the Bucks and wed replace him w a pg to ensure their depth remained in tact and paid the difference in contracts plus a small kicker

No way...Larkin needs to work on 4 things..His three point shooting..A pull up tear drop in the lane..Finishing at the rim..And how to turn on and off his speed...This guy is a keeper..

Briggs loves Wolters

You mean Wolters? I'd rather keep Larkin. Aldrich is the only player I'd actually be happy to keep but Larkin is arguably worth his salary and is playing at a higher level than Wolters has.

EnySpree wrote:Briggs loves Wolters

I'd like to take a50 game look at him.

Bonn1997 wrote:You mean Wolters? I'd rather keep Larkin. Aldrich is the only player I'd actually be happy to keep but Larkin is arguably worth his salary and is playing at a higher level than Wolters has.

Larkin is a free agent after the season

BRIGGS wrote:

EnySpree wrote:Briggs loves Wolters

I'd like to take a50 game look at him.

Nba League pass?

EnySpree wrote:Briggs loves Wolters

And Jimmer..

BRIGGS wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:You mean Wolters? I'd rather keep Larkin. Aldrich is the only player I'd actually be happy to keep but Larkin is arguably worth his salary and is playing at a higher level than Wolters has.

Larkin is a free agent after the season

You're right. I still wouldn't pay to get Wolters. I'm pretty sure we can use only $3 mil total in cash considerations per year.

holfresh wrote:

EnySpree wrote:Briggs loves Wolters

And Jimmer..

If it was up to me pick 24 would've been turned into a combination of mike muscala and either Nate wolfers or erick Greene. And I think wed be better off

phil made a bad move not picking up his option. I mean 1.6 million is nothing considering we will have plenty of cap space. The bigger issue is getting rid of the calderon and jr smith contracts

Up to me, I'd sign Bryce Cotton to a contract for the rest of the season. I'll catch some plays here and there and keep up with the team but the truth of the matter is the Knicks haven't been worth watching for awhile now--been turning my attention to the NBDL. Have watched quite a few Austin Toro games on Youtube mainly to get a better feel for JaMychal Green, but I've come away real impressed with a lot of their players including Cotton. I know Cotton's a little on the small side similar to Larkin but I like his game a whole lot better. I think larkin has talent but for whatever reason he's played incredibly timid out there---Cotton's the polar opposite...Kid's a real aggressive, nice player--very skilled on the offensive end. Quick, tight handle and he can facilitate too. Forget the 10-day contracts -- make some room and sign JaMychal Green, Cotton and maybe even Orlando Johnson to deals for the rest of the year. Elliot Williams is another young player outta the DL I'd sign asap as well...3-4 nice building blocks for next year and beyond. I'd be aggressive here--swoop in and take these players right away from SA. Start what could be long-term relationships with these guys now. They're better than anything we have on our Westchester roster (JaMychal Green is head & shoulders better than any Westchester big man for example and Cotton > Langston Galloway). Better than anything on our NBA roster too not named Melo, sorry to say. I think these guys are all NBA players.

We're not getting anything for our big expiring contracts -- all that'll be offered to us at the deadline will be the wrong moves i.e. longer contracts for mediocre/subpar players. Been there, done that 1000x. It never works. Remove any such temptation by just cutting all of these guys now. Simply purge and create roster spots. Be bold and just cut these guys. Waive and stretch guys like Calderon and/or Prigioni too while we're at it. Turn right around and replace these guys with some of the best DL talent out there. The top DL talent = NBA talent imo. Without question...We'd accomplish a lot with moves like this -- I don't think it would equate to more immediate wins (which we don't want anyway) but it definitely would make these games more enjoyable/watchable, it would give us an opportunity to try out some pretty darn good young talent for the future (see how a JaMychal Green looks next to Melo for example before we shut Melo down) and we'd remove any temptation to make bad moves with the expiring contracts (provided nothing's truly out there that would make any sense--which I can't picture -- I wouldn't even give Phil a piece of Bazooka Joe bubblegum for Andrea Bargnani -- but Phil still needs to explore all avenues, something I hope he's been doing). I honestly can't believe more teams, esp. teams that stink like we do, don't go this route more. Dolan's thinking is probably I pay these players big money to perform therefore I'm not waiving anybody but that's extremely short-sighted. Guys like Bargnani, Stoudemire etc. don't even play and even if/when they make it back, they're shells of what they used to be anyway. So what's the point in keeping them around then?? Try to immediately flip these guys into some nice young talent with the idea of carrying over these youngsters into next year at cheap money if they prove themselves worthy.

BRIGGS wrote:

holfresh wrote:

EnySpree wrote:Briggs loves Wolters

And Jimmer..

If it was up to me pick 24 would've been turned into a combination of mike muscala and either Nate wolfers or erick Greene. And I think wed be better off

Knicks also could have had Rudy Gobert. Seems like a 'big' mistake passing on him.

Shane Larkin is one player the Knicks have that has value. Obviously not high value but he has what I would call a Patty Mills niche. A secondary guard who can hit the three at a good rate handle and play defense. I kind of know what he is already I have my information on him and the Knicks have already made him an UFA with no rights to him. The Bucks would want something for Wolters who is essentially the Bucks 4th PG. I'd love to take a look at Wolters for 40 games. I don't like his 3 pt shot nor does he have any type of game changing defensive or athletic skills but at 6-5 is he a guy I can use in a three guard set or two PG set or is he a guy I can use as a 6-8 man? I can only find out by putting him on my team and putting the ball in his hands for 30 minutes. I get zero value from putting the ball in Jose Caldeons hands. I get nothing. If we want "value" out of this season(beyond losing every game we can)--we need to be opportunistic and open to change. Minnesota is getting back Martin Perovic and Rubio--they will start to win--that probably close to a 500 team when healthy. We will be in comp with Philly all year for spots 1-2 under almost any circumstance. The Knicks already know they have to do this. But we can try to improve while we lose. This is why id look at moves like these. Im not married to any player Cole A Id trade him in a minute if a good deal came by. Thats the only thing the Knicks have gotten right--they are now trying to plays guys to get value out of them.

BRIGGS wrote:Shane Larkin is one player the Knicks have that has value. Obviously not high value but he has what I would call a Patty Mills niche. A secondary guard who can hit the three at a good rate handle and play defense. I kind of know what he is already I have my information on him and the Knicks have already made him an UFA with no rights to him. The Bucks would want something for Wolters who is essentially the Bucks 4th PG. I'd love to take a look at Wolters for 40 games. I don't like his 3 pt shot nor does he have any type of game changing defensive or athletic skills but at 6-5 is he a guy I can use in a three guard set or two PG set or is he a guy I can use as a 6-8 man? I can only find out by putting him on my team and putting the ball in his hands for 30 minutes. I get zero value from putting the ball in Jose Caldeons hands. I get nothing. If we want "value" out of this season(beyond losing every game we can)--we need to be opportunistic and open to change. Minnesota is getting back Martin Perovic and Rubio--they will start to win--that probably close to a 500 team when healthy. We will be in comp with Philly all year for spots 1-2 under almost any circumstance. The Knicks already know they have to do this. But we can try to improve while we lose. This is why id look at moves like these. Im not married to any player Cole A Id trade him in a minute if a good deal came by. Thats the only thing the Knicks have gotten right--they are now trying to plays guys to get value out of them.

Why do we need another slow footed PG who can't defend the position..Isn't two on the roster enough??

TripleThreat wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:The Bucks would want something for Wolters who is essentially the Bucks 4th PG.

Yes, the Bucks would want a real asset.

Trading for a smaller player who has just as likely little chance to crack their rotation doesn't help them. Because if someone does get hurt on the Bucks, Wolters at least has experience with those players and that team. They aren't trying to integrate a new guy on top of trying to cover for injury. Wolters is cheap and young, exactly what you want as organizational depth. He's actually played well last year when given the chance and nothing indicates he's a locker room problem.

You are pushing for a trade the Bucks won't make and have no incentive to make. Nothing you've said creates more incentive for them to make this deal. Again, you only point out how it helps the Knicks. Could Wolters help the Knicks, yes, but unless trade looks like a win/win from a perception side, those trades simply don't get made in the modern NBA ( unless sadly it's the Knicks getting hosed by another team)

You want to move Larkin because he provides the Knicks with no real future value. Do you not think the Bucks have to consider that issue if they traded for him?

The Knicks have nothing the Bucks want in terms of players IMHO, if you want Wolters, it's going to cost a future pick.

TT I dont think Wolters has anymore value than Larkin or it's close. Its in the beauty of the beholder. I think what I mentioned about Larkin being a niche "Patty Mills" player has validity. Right now he is hitting over 40% from 3 and 90 from the FL with good D. Wolters is really quite the opposite player. He has upsides in different areas and may be a better fit for the type of offense they want to play here--BUT who knows until he has the ball in his hands again. Im sure the Knicks would let Wolters play 30 minutes a night for the last 40 games--Im sure Wolters and his agent would like it Im sure Larkin has value as a second round pick to someone---thus I believe a threeway could happen if not a mutual accord.

holfresh wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Shane Larkin is one player the Knicks have that has value. Obviously not high value but he has what I would call a Patty Mills niche. A secondary guard who can hit the three at a good rate handle and play defense. I kind of know what he is already I have my information on him and the Knicks have already made him an UFA with no rights to him. The Bucks would want something for Wolters who is essentially the Bucks 4th PG. I'd love to take a look at Wolters for 40 games. I don't like his 3 pt shot nor does he have any type of game changing defensive or athletic skills but at 6-5 is he a guy I can use in a three guard set or two PG set or is he a guy I can use as a 6-8 man? I can only find out by putting him on my team and putting the ball in his hands for 30 minutes. I get zero value from putting the ball in Jose Caldeons hands. I get nothing. If we want "value" out of this season(beyond losing every game we can)--we need to be opportunistic and open to change. Minnesota is getting back Martin Perovic and Rubio--they will start to win--that probably close to a 500 team when healthy. We will be in comp with Philly all year for spots 1-2 under almost any circumstance. The Knicks already know they have to do this. But we can try to improve while we lose. This is why id look at moves like these. Im not married to any player Cole A Id trade him in a minute if a good deal came by. Thats the only thing the Knicks have gotten right--they are now trying to plays guys to get value out of them.

Why do we need another slow footed PG who can't defend the position..Isn't two on the roster enough??

Wolters is probably a little quicker longer and bigger than you think. He shouldve been all rookie 2nd team at worst last year. If he can improve his 3 pt shooting--he could be a starter or close to it on the right team for years. Remember hes 6-5 and he has some very nice shake to his game. He gets to the rack very well. Big difference between Wolters and Larkin--Wolters can make plays at the rim and in the lane Larkin cannot. Wolters also has more control of his dribble a better passer/rebounder and hes 6+inches taller. Larkin more of a perimeter -based PG--again it depends on what you want.

why would the bucks take the inferior player in larkin?

TripleThreat wrote:

BRIGGS wrote: He gets to the rack very well. Big difference between Wolters and Larkin--Wolters can make plays at the rim and in the lane Larkin cannot. Wolters also has more control of his dribble a better passer/rebounder and hes 6+inches taller. Larkin more of a perimeter -based PG--again it depends on what you want.

You can't change the narrative on the fly to make a trade unlikely to happen seem more plausible, Briggs.

Wolters is either a better player than Larkin, or he is not. He has a higher future upside or he doesn't. You want to push that it's a wash when it comes down to looking at the compensation issue. But then you want to push Wolters is a better and more versatile player once it gets to the issue on if the player can help the Knicks or not.

A trade that actually has a chance of happening has to appear, on the surface, to benefit BOTH TEAMS. It has to be defensible, at least in some fashion, to the owner, the fanbase and the general media, even the NON KNICKS side of it.

This is a trade just to make a trade. There is NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING, that indicates that Larkin's play and future value are anything the Bucks are looking for right now. NOTHING.

You just want Wolters, which is fine, he's a nice young player who might thrive with more opportunity. But you can't get him for NOTHING. The Bucks won't trade him for NO REASON. Ok sure Wolters and his agent would like more minutes. WHAT RESERVE ON ANY NBA TEAM WOULDN'T LIKE MORE MINUTES? WHAT AGENT OUT THERE WOULDN'T LIKE HIS CLIENTS ON THE BENCH TO GET MORE MINUTES? Do you think that's going to move the needle on a trade?

Briggs, I'll give you credit, in a recent post, you admitted that there finally exists a possibility to you that the Knicks won't win the draft lottery and won't get Okafor and might have to actually consider other players. It only took me like four months of hammering you on that for you to actually budge. I'm curious how long it will take for you to start assessing potential trades from the NON KNICKS side of the equation.

No team is going to help the Knicks just for the sake of helping the Knicks or Wolters or Wolters agent.

Just because a guy in a Knicks uniform has a solid stretch of play over a period of a few games doesn't automatically jack up his trade value. The NBA marketplace simply doesn't work that way. Cole Aldrich had a nice little stretch. You'll fail to mention that his big numbers game came against Portland with LMA and Robin Lopez out, and the Blazers running out Freeland and Thomas Robinson out there. But Aldrich suddenly doesn't become a hot commodity just because he had a nice stretch. Now a half season of kicking ass is one thing. Or tearing it up from the start to the trade deadline is another thing, but a small sample size isn't going to really move the trade value needle.

Wolters will cost the Knicks a pick. The Knicks will not get a 2nd for Larkin. I wish otherwise but that would just be a wish. Accept it Briggs, to get something of value, you need to surrender something of value.

My bet is there are teams who value Larkin higher than Wolters. Face it--maybe Milwaukee does now that J Kidd is there. Nate has had no run--he's the 4th PG on the bench there. His value is not high. I'm sure the player and the players agent would like to get him to a situation where he will be given a nice chance to play. Ny affords that opportunity. Teams placate players in situations like these. My bet is we could move Larkin for a two in a 3way that transfers Wolters to us. This is a nothing for the Bucks. And this is not some kind of out of bounds one sided proposal. This is a simple threeway move that gets Nate playing--Larkin to a team that might like what he brings and a future 2 to the Bucks. They have no chance of getting more unless he is part of a bigger trade for other players. But while he doesnt play his value is trickling down.