masud wrote:Stat got hurt at the end of the season at the start of the season he was putting up near mvp numbers.Voiding his contract was not a thought in anyone's head at that time. And like I said if the Knicks had saved the amnesty they wouldn't have used on Stat for at least a couple seasons. Im not a huge Tyson fan but early on he was a major contributor to the limited success we did have. So again, had we kept billups we would have had to go though the first couple of seasons with zero rim protection or rebounding while the Knicks came to terms with the fact that Stat needed to be amnestied. And sure after all that we would have had a ton of capspace... and a terrible team with just Melo. That's not a good starting point to build a contender. My point is that the Billups amnesty wasn't the move that killed us, it was that move where we gave up an entire basketball team for one guy who wasn't LeBron.
Amare was playing at an MVP level the prior season, not 2011-2012. Although he did contribute in 2011-2012 prior to hurting himself in the playoff in warmups, so I stand corrected there. I agree fully on the all-in for LeBron. That was a big set back. I do think you are underestimating the importance of roster balance and how terrible the Tyson signing was. We had no real solution for the backcourt when we dropped Billups and eliminated all flexibility. We also over valued Fields significantly, which obviously didn't help matters.
masud wrote:Stat got hurt at the end of the season at the start of the season he was putting up near mvp numbers.Voiding his contract was not a thought in anyone's head at that time. And like I said if the Knicks had saved the amnesty they wouldn't have used on Stat for at least a couple seasons. Im not a huge Tyson fan but early on he was a major contributor to the limited success we did have. So again, had we kept billups we would have had to go though the first couple of seasons with zero rim protection or rebounding while the Knicks came to terms with the fact that Stat needed to be amnestied. And sure after all that we would have had a ton of capspace... and a terrible team with just Melo. That's not a good starting point to build a contender. My point is that the Billups amnesty wasn't the move that killed us, it was that move where we gave up an entire basketball team for one guy who wasn't LeBron.
If we traded Melo's package for CP3 instead and signed Melo, do you really think that Dwight Howard's goofy ass would've gone to Houston as a free agent in 2012? There is no doubt in my mind that we would've been favorites, which would've been the perfect time to amnesty Amar'e.
Besides, you act like $20 million is chump change. That (and the mini-midlevel) is enough to build an entire supporting cast around Melo and a CP3. We did just that this past season.
Sorry got the time lines messed up a little but my point still stands, nobody was thinking about saving the amnesty for stat at that point. And I do understand the importance of roster balance. I was one of the people that wanted a pg rather than Tyson, we had a gaping hole at the 1. But we also had a gaping hole at the 5 and Tyson was the best player available for that money at the time, if we had gone with a guard we would have basically been in the same situation. The real problem was that trade that left us with muliple gaping holes.
edit: Nard idk why you quoted me, I wanted to sign Melo in free agency
masud wrote:Sorry got the time lines messed up a little but my point still stands, nobody was thinking about saving the amnesty for stat at that point. And I do understand the importance of roster balance. I was one of the people that wanted a pg rather than Tyson, we had a gaping hole at the 1. But we also had a gaping hole at the 5 and Tyson was the best player available for that money at the time, if we had gone with a guard we would have basically been in the same situation. The real problem was that trade that left us with muliple gaping holes.edit: Nard idk why you quoted me, I wanted to sign Melo in free agency
Not sure they ever thought about using the Amnesty on Billups until he got hurt, either, for what's it worth.
didn't they amnesty Billups just so they could sign Tyson?
masud wrote:didn't they amnesty Billups just so they could sign Tyson?
Yes, using the Amnesty Provision on Chauncey Billups was specifically so they could have room to sign Tyson Chandler in the strike shortened season to form that New York Knicks superteam.
Who else could we have used that Tyson money on? I don't remember and I'm curious.
masud wrote:Who else could we have used that Tyson money on? I don't remember and I'm curious.
I'm not postive on who else was available and too lazy too look it up. Many were advocates for waiting out the year with the cap space since players had expressed interest in coming the following summer. They Tyson move created a huge hole in the roster and they over paid for him. It was a panic move by the Knicks and a big problem. That's classic Knicks management thought been that was for almost 20 years.
GustavBahler wrote:We have enough evidence ( I do anyway) that the players we gave up werent worth losing sleep over. Gallinari is playing really well now but, he has been suffering from one serious injury or another since before he was drafted by the Knicks. Seeing how our GMs over the last decade (until Phil) f'ed up one draft after another for the most part, even high picks. I have little doubt they would have f'ed up again if they had the opportunity.
It was a wash IMO. Many decisions were made by previous GMs (and by Dolan) draft picks, trades, coaches that underperformed, along with Melo at times. It was a big decision that has failed to this point because of the many decisions that came after the trade, not the trade itself.
Fair and balanced.
We're still better off though. 
masud wrote:Stat got hurt at the end of the season at the start of the season he was putting up near mvp numbers.Voiding his contract was not a thought in anyone's head at that time. And like I said if the Knicks had saved the amnesty they wouldn't have used on Stat for at least a couple seasons. Im not a huge Tyson fan but early on he was a major contributor to the limited success we did have. So again, had we kept billups we would have had to go though the first couple of seasons with zero rim protection or rebounding while the Knicks came to terms with the fact that Stat needed to be amnestied. And sure after all that we would have had a ton of capspace... and a terrible team with just Melo. That's not a good starting point to build a contender. My point is that the Billups amnesty wasn't the move that killed us, it was that move where we gave up an entire basketball team for one guy who wasn't LeBron.
Quit now, please. An entire basketball team? Stop. Your entire basketball team was comprised of IR Gallo, the invisible Mayor, 5 year Project Moz, and Ray Felton. Who we got back for nothing, which was a wash.
And Stat got hurt halfway through the season, not at the end. When Melo came on board, that half season of beasting double doubles was already a fading memory.
GustavBahler wrote:We have enough evidence ( I do anyway) that the players we gave up werent worth losing sleep over. Gallinari is playing really well now but, he has been suffering from one serious injury or another since before he was drafted by the Knicks. Seeing how our GMs over the last decade (until Phil) f'ed up one draft after another for the most part, even high picks. I have little doubt they would have f'ed up again if they had the opportunity.
It was a wash IMO. Many decisions were made by previous GMs (and by Dolan) draft picks, trades, coaches that underperformed, along with Melo at times. It was a big decision that has failed to this point because of the many decisions that came after the trade, not the trade itself.
your post is a classic case of begging the question. the issue is whether that trade should have ever taken place, not whether the knicks got the better end of the deal.
dk7th wrote:GustavBahler wrote:We have enough evidence ( I do anyway) that the players we gave up werent worth losing sleep over. Gallinari is playing really well now but, he has been suffering from one serious injury or another since before he was drafted by the Knicks. Seeing how our GMs over the last decade (until Phil) f'ed up one draft after another for the most part, even high picks. I have little doubt they would have f'ed up again if they had the opportunity.
It was a wash IMO. Many decisions were made by previous GMs (and by Dolan) draft picks, trades, coaches that underperformed, along with Melo at times. It was a big decision that has failed to this point because of the many decisions that came after the trade, not the trade itself.
your post is a classic case of begging the question. the issue is whether that trade should have ever taken place, not whether the knicks got the better end of the deal.
And your post is a classic case of woulda, coulda, shoulda. It still may be an issue for you but certainly not for me, because ownership and mgmt was proving that they would fuck up a ham sandwich. Wasnt until Phil decided to break the cycle of making the playoffs at all costs did the Knicks future change for the better. Melo wasn't a factor either way.
GustavBahler wrote:dk7th wrote:GustavBahler wrote:We have enough evidence ( I do anyway) that the players we gave up werent worth losing sleep over. Gallinari is playing really well now but, he has been suffering from one serious injury or another since before he was drafted by the Knicks. Seeing how our GMs over the last decade (until Phil) f'ed up one draft after another for the most part, even high picks. I have little doubt they would have f'ed up again if they had the opportunity.
It was a wash IMO. Many decisions were made by previous GMs (and by Dolan) draft picks, trades, coaches that underperformed, along with Melo at times. It was a big decision that has failed to this point because of the many decisions that came after the trade, not the trade itself.
your post is a classic case of begging the question. the issue is whether that trade should have ever taken place, not whether the knicks got the better end of the deal.
And your post is a classic case of woulda, coulda, shoulda. It still may be an issue for you but certainly not for me, because ownership and mgmt was proving that they would fuck up a ham sandwich. Wasnt until Phil decided to break the cycle of making the playoffs at all costs did the Knicks future change for the better. Melo wasn't a factor either way.
so you are admitting melo as a knick was a huge mistake.
SwishAndDish13 wrote:masud wrote:Who else could we have used that Tyson money on? I don't remember and I'm curious.
I'm not postive on who else was available and too lazy too look it up. Many were advocates for waiting out the year with the cap space since players had expressed interest in coming the following summer. They Tyson move created a huge hole in the roster and they over paid for him. It was a panic move by the Knicks and a big problem. That's classic Knicks management thought been that was for almost 20 years.
Go back I'm time and Grunwald was praised by fans for the move. It was Dolan's ability to pay 28mm for the season to payoff Bllups and sign Tyson! But he was "GM OF THE YEAR" as praised.
What is lost often is the current state of the team(s) at that moment. Tyson just won a chip with the mavs and was played great.
Paired with Melo and Amare on paper was pretty sweet.
But Amare got hurt and the roster was not deep. Things don't always work as planned and 5 years later you have the clarity of hindsight.
dk7th wrote:GustavBahler wrote:dk7th wrote:GustavBahler wrote:We have enough evidence ( I do anyway) that the players we gave up werent worth losing sleep over. Gallinari is playing really well now but, he has been suffering from one serious injury or another since before he was drafted by the Knicks. Seeing how our GMs over the last decade (until Phil) f'ed up one draft after another for the most part, even high picks. I have little doubt they would have f'ed up again if they had the opportunity.
It was a wash IMO. Many decisions were made by previous GMs (and by Dolan) draft picks, trades, coaches that underperformed, along with Melo at times. It was a big decision that has failed to this point because of the many decisions that came after the trade, not the trade itself.
your post is a classic case of begging the question. the issue is whether that trade should have ever taken place, not whether the knicks got the better end of the deal.
And your post is a classic case of woulda, coulda, shoulda. It still may be an issue for you but certainly not for me, because ownership and mgmt was proving that they would fuck up a ham sandwich. Wasnt until Phil decided to break the cycle of making the playoffs at all costs did the Knicks future change for the better. Melo wasn't a factor either way.
so you are admitting melo as a knick was a huge mistake.
No, you are saying it was a big mistake. I'm saying that there is no evidence that the Knicks would have been better off not making any move at all so its pointless IMO to keep revisiting what is now an old trade.
GustavBahler wrote:dk7th wrote:GustavBahler wrote:dk7th wrote:GustavBahler wrote:We have enough evidence ( I do anyway) that the players we gave up werent worth losing sleep over. Gallinari is playing really well now but, he has been suffering from one serious injury or another since before he was drafted by the Knicks. Seeing how our GMs over the last decade (until Phil) f'ed up one draft after another for the most part, even high picks. I have little doubt they would have f'ed up again if they had the opportunity.
It was a wash IMO. Many decisions were made by previous GMs (and by Dolan) draft picks, trades, coaches that underperformed, along with Melo at times. It was a big decision that has failed to this point because of the many decisions that came after the trade, not the trade itself.
your post is a classic case of begging the question. the issue is whether that trade should have ever taken place, not whether the knicks got the better end of the deal.
And your post is a classic case of woulda, coulda, shoulda. It still may be an issue for you but certainly not for me, because ownership and mgmt was proving that they would fuck up a ham sandwich. Wasnt until Phil decided to break the cycle of making the playoffs at all costs did the Knicks future change for the better. Melo wasn't a factor either way.
so you are admitting melo as a knick was a huge mistake.
No, you are saying it was a big mistake. I'm saying that there is no evidence that the Knicks would have been better off not making any move at all so its pointless IMO to keep revisiting what is now an old trade.
easy to make this argument since he is still here... were it not for the fact that the knicks have had nothing to show for it over his time here, and there seems to be a pattern of underachievement that has been established at this point, and the common denominator is dolan and melo... and money.
in spite of all this i still hold out the hope that by the end of next season the knicks will be a serious playoff team, albeit with one of two eventualities: melo on a significant minutes restriction or trading him for an upgrade.
dk7th wrote:GustavBahler wrote:dk7th wrote:GustavBahler wrote:dk7th wrote:GustavBahler wrote:We have enough evidence ( I do anyway) that the players we gave up werent worth losing sleep over. Gallinari is playing really well now but, he has been suffering from one serious injury or another since before he was drafted by the Knicks. Seeing how our GMs over the last decade (until Phil) f'ed up one draft after another for the most part, even high picks. I have little doubt they would have f'ed up again if they had the opportunity.
It was a wash IMO. Many decisions were made by previous GMs (and by Dolan) draft picks, trades, coaches that underperformed, along with Melo at times. It was a big decision that has failed to this point because of the many decisions that came after the trade, not the trade itself.
your post is a classic case of begging the question. the issue is whether that trade should have ever taken place, not whether the knicks got the better end of the deal.
And your post is a classic case of woulda, coulda, shoulda. It still may be an issue for you but certainly not for me, because ownership and mgmt was proving that they would fuck up a ham sandwich. Wasnt until Phil decided to break the cycle of making the playoffs at all costs did the Knicks future change for the better. Melo wasn't a factor either way.
so you are admitting melo as a knick was a huge mistake.
No, you are saying it was a big mistake. I'm saying that there is no evidence that the Knicks would have been better off not making any move at all so its pointless IMO to keep revisiting what is now an old trade.
easy to make this argument since he is still here... were it not for the fact that the knicks have had nothing to show for it over his time here, and there seems to be a pattern of underachievement that has been established at this point, and the common denominator is dolan and melo... and money.
in spite of all this i still hold out the hope that by the end of next season the knicks will be a serious playoff team, albeit with one of two eventualities: melo on a significant minutes restriction or trading him for an upgrade.
No, its easy to make that argument because Melo has signed another contract since then. Its Melo, its Dolan, his mgmt team and their decisions, its the best player we gave up in that trade couldn't stay on the court during those years. Its all of it.
If you have issues with his new max deal, I had them as well. Said at the time that I would rather see Melo leave than take max years, not max dollars. Melo might agree to be traded, we could get another star and Melo stays, anything can happen.
I didn't read the whole thread but Moz didn't walk. They flipped him for 2 #1's. Still I don't think it was a bad deal for us. It made us pretty mediocre for 5 years but it was an upgrade to the decade prior where we were a laughingstock
dk7th wrote:GustavBahler wrote:dk7th wrote:GustavBahler wrote:dk7th wrote:GustavBahler wrote:We have enough evidence ( I do anyway) that the players we gave up werent worth losing sleep over. Gallinari is playing really well now but, he has been suffering from one serious injury or another since before he was drafted by the Knicks. Seeing how our GMs over the last decade (until Phil) f'ed up one draft after another for the most part, even high picks. I have little doubt they would have f'ed up again if they had the opportunity.
It was a wash IMO. Many decisions were made by previous GMs (and by Dolan) draft picks, trades, coaches that underperformed, along with Melo at times. It was a big decision that has failed to this point because of the many decisions that came after the trade, not the trade itself.
your post is a classic case of begging the question. the issue is whether that trade should have ever taken place, not whether the knicks got the better end of the deal.
And your post is a classic case of woulda, coulda, shoulda. It still may be an issue for you but certainly not for me, because ownership and mgmt was proving that they would fuck up a ham sandwich. Wasnt until Phil decided to break the cycle of making the playoffs at all costs did the Knicks future change for the better. Melo wasn't a factor either way.
so you are admitting melo as a knick was a huge mistake.
No, you are saying it was a big mistake. I'm saying that there is no evidence that the Knicks would have been better off not making any move at all so its pointless IMO to keep revisiting what is now an old trade.
easy to make this argument since he is still here... were it not for the fact that the knicks have had nothing to show for it over his time here, and there seems to be a pattern of underachievement that has been established at this point, and the common denominator is dolan and melo... and money.
in spite of all this i still hold out the hope that by the end of next season the knicks will be a serious playoff team, albeit with one of two eventualities: melo on a significant minutes restriction or trading him for an upgrade.
maybe in your world, he can play even better too, thereby increasing his trade value. But if his trade value increases, and we get back really great picks or upgraded players or both, then what of your original argument?
He could have been rehabbing again as a Knick!
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/148680...
Gallinari out indefinitely after MRI confirms sprainAn MRI on Nuggets forward Danilo Gallinari confirmed that he suffered a right ankle sprain on Friday, and coach Michael Malone plans to play Denver's upcoming homestand without the team's leading scorer.
"I feel bad for him. He was having a career year," Malone said, according to The Denver Post. "It's always tough when you lose a player like Gallo for us because we're so young and he gives us so many things. But just for him, as a young man, because that's a lot to handle, and for him to hurt it and be out for a long period of time, it's not good for any of us. But we'll support him in every way we can, and hopefully he can come back even better."
The Nuggets begin a seven-game homestand Monday that runs through March 12.
Gallinari's return even after that is unclear. Malone said the Nuggets would have a better idea of a timeline "in the next couple of days" after the ankle swelling goes down.
"He got to meet with the doctors and kind of confer on what's the best course of action," the coach said. "And then just do as much rehab as possible."
jrodmc wrote:dk7th wrote:GustavBahler wrote:dk7th wrote:GustavBahler wrote:dk7th wrote:GustavBahler wrote:We have enough evidence ( I do anyway) that the players we gave up werent worth losing sleep over. Gallinari is playing really well now but, he has been suffering from one serious injury or another since before he was drafted by the Knicks. Seeing how our GMs over the last decade (until Phil) f'ed up one draft after another for the most part, even high picks. I have little doubt they would have f'ed up again if they had the opportunity.
It was a wash IMO. Many decisions were made by previous GMs (and by Dolan) draft picks, trades, coaches that underperformed, along with Melo at times. It was a big decision that has failed to this point because of the many decisions that came after the trade, not the trade itself.
your post is a classic case of begging the question. the issue is whether that trade should have ever taken place, not whether the knicks got the better end of the deal.
And your post is a classic case of woulda, coulda, shoulda. It still may be an issue for you but certainly not for me, because ownership and mgmt was proving that they would fuck up a ham sandwich. Wasnt until Phil decided to break the cycle of making the playoffs at all costs did the Knicks future change for the better. Melo wasn't a factor either way.
so you are admitting melo as a knick was a huge mistake.
No, you are saying it was a big mistake. I'm saying that there is no evidence that the Knicks would have been better off not making any move at all so its pointless IMO to keep revisiting what is now an old trade.
easy to make this argument since he is still here... were it not for the fact that the knicks have had nothing to show for it over his time here, and there seems to be a pattern of underachievement that has been established at this point, and the common denominator is dolan and melo... and money.
in spite of all this i still hold out the hope that by the end of next season the knicks will be a serious playoff team, albeit with one of two eventualities: melo on a significant minutes restriction or trading him for an upgrade.
maybe in your world, he can play even better too, thereby increasing his trade value. But if his trade value increases, and we get back really great picks or upgraded players or both, then what of your original argument?
my premise is that he will not ask for a trade. if in fact he does ask for a trade, the knicks will certainly win. you do want what's best for the knicks, don't you?
