Knicks · GRADING THE ROSE TRADE: BULLS VS KNICKS...WHO WON? (page 5)

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:The Knicks are doing what they do best. Kill their chances to build something real by going for the sexy trade that does long term damage. Already we are seeing 60 games by Noah will cost us 8MM more than 82 games by Rolo. Then wE will need to add an SG and we don't even have a bench. But apparently it's all good, we have two ball dominant chuckers with injury history and questionable attitudes.And this is the best team we could put around KP. About 7 years ago must of the same folks were so happy that STAT and Melo would just click together.

Sounds about right...

So what is it you like about the Knicks?

I root for the Knicks, like everyone else here. I was definitely liking the path we were on last year, can't say I like them now.

What path was that....

And how do you even know it it a different path.

Maybe it's a winding path.

Maybe Phil Jackson doesn't like to give out directions.

I don't know, the traded Robin Lopez. If Robin Lopez was the Knicks pathfinder, could chance the helicopters would eventually have to be called in to find the hikers.

The path of drafting good players and acquiring young players with high upside and or solid vets at extremely reasonable bargains. Thats how you build goid long term sustainable base IMO. I am not saying Phil doesn't know what he is doing, I am just saying it looks like we changed direction. If Noah gets a 2+year deal at 18MM that's not a good signing,and that's what is being broadly discussed. I do like Noah though, it will be fun to root for him and watch him troll leBron etc

CrushAlot wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:The Knicks are doing what they do best. Kill their chances to build something real by going for the sexy trade that does long term damage. Already we are seeing 60 games by Noah will cost us 8MM more than 82 games by Rolo. Then wE will need to add an SG and we don't even have a bench. But apparently it's all good, we have two ball dominant chuckers with injury history and questionable attitudes.And this is the best team we could put around KP. About 7 years ago must of the same folks were so happy that STAT and Melo would just click together.

I don't remember many that we're posting here at the time in favor of the Melo trade with what was given up. But you weren't posting here then right?

Didn't you ask the new guy what his last screen name was? Is this thing for you? Fancy yourself as a self appointed mod of some sort? What is your issue? So if I posted here with a different name what would that prove? And if I didn't what would that prove? Are you 17 years old? I am not going to waste any time responding to you. You are clearly not worth it. You will probably attempt some lame comeback about you knowing I used to post here before. Get a life, there's more to it than frighin internet forum.

My response was because you were referencing something that you wouldn't be aware of if you weren't here when the trade went down. In regards to the other guy, he started a post where he introduced himself as a new guy but got into it with a bunch of guys that have posted here for a long time. I don't pretend to be a mod or mod the forum. A mod spoke to that poster. I just get annoyed with statements that are far from what was the truth (i.e. posters opinion of the melo trade at the time).

I used to read the forum routinely back then but didn't start pushing till later. And yes there were a bunch of people rationalizing how STAT and Melo would fit. I don't remember if it was right after the trade or later on. The point is you are using when someone signs up as the first time they ever read the forum which is not a very smart thing to do.

Glad you weren't writing b.s. like this,

Are you 17 years old? I am not going to waste any time responding to you. You are clearly not worth it. You will probably attempt some lame comeback about you knowing I used to post here before. Get a life, there's more to it than frighin internet forum.

Stay classy.

Its not BS is a clear pattern of behavior you exhibit. I think you asked me about my prior screen name when I started posting as well. As for staying classy, maybe you can quit interrogating people on imaginary ulterior motives and just respond to their posts?

meloshouldgo wrote:The path of drafting good players

Well, I'd argue NO team ever intentionally follows the path of drafting bad players, but more relevant to the Knicks, how has that path changed?

They didn't have a draft pick this year. They'd maintained all picks in their possession. I don't see any alternation of this particular path.

and acquiring young players with high upside and or solid vets at extremely reasonable bargains.

Who qualified for that last year? Honest question?

Lopez was neither particularly young, had high upside or was an extremely reasonable bargain.

MAYBE Williams qualifies, but you aren't building a successful team of KP and Williamses.

And not for nothing, but he hasn't even officially left yet.

I am just saying it looks like we changed direction.

And I neither see the clearly marked path you do nor see the derivation from it.

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:The Knicks are doing what they do best. Kill their chances to build something real by going for the sexy trade that does long term damage. Already we are seeing 60 games by Noah will cost us 8MM more than 82 games by Rolo. Then wE will need to add an SG and we don't even have a bench. But apparently it's all good, we have two ball dominant chuckers with injury history and questionable attitudes.And this is the best team we could put around KP. About 7 years ago must of the same folks were so happy that STAT and Melo would just click together.

Sounds about right...

So what is it you like about the Knicks?

I root for the Knicks, like everyone else here. I was definitely liking the path we were on last year, can't say I like them now.

What path was that....

And how do you even know it it a different path.

Maybe it's a winding path.

Maybe Phil Jackson doesn't like to give out directions.

I don't know, the traded Robin Lopez. If Robin Lopez was the Knicks pathfinder, could chance the helicopters would eventually have to be called in to find the hikers.

The path of drafting good players and acquiring young players with high upside and or solid vets at extremely reasonable bargains. Thats how you build goid long term sustainable base IMO. I am not saying Phil doesn't know what he is doing, I am just saying it looks like we changed direction. If Noah gets a 2+year deal at 18MM that's not a good signing,and that's what is being broadly discussed. I do like Noah though, it will be fun to root for him and watch him troll leBron etc

You and others have made this claim that somehow Phil has changed direction. He may have decided to embrace more 3's and PnR within his Triangle, but exactly what makes you say he's changed hid approach or direction? It seems to me he's been consistently doing the same kinds of things since he took over. Vets added and young prospects added. What has changed?

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:The path of drafting good players

Well, I'd argue NO team ever intentionally follows the path of drafting bad players, but more relevant to the Knicks, how has that path changed?

They didn't have a draft pick this year. They'd maintained all picks in their possession. I don't see any alternation of this particular path.

and acquiring young players with high upside and or solid vets at extremely reasonable bargains.

Who qualified for that last year? Honest question?

Lopez was neither particularly young, had high upside or was an extremely reasonable bargain.

MAYBE Williams qualifies, but you aren't building a successful team of KP and Williamses.

And not for nothing, but he hasn't even officially left yet.

I am just saying it looks like we changed direction.

And I neither see the clearly marked path you do nor see the derivation from it.

I think Lopez was a very reasonable contract
Yes Williams is high upside low salary player we picked up
Yes, I think you can build a team like that - just not in one or two years - I think you gather assets over time and at some point you need a bit of luck, but if we have the right pieces we can score a real big player on a trade that doesn't have health issues and attitude problems.

The clear direction was that we were staying away from starfukks for players with a bunch of baggage or question marks - we haven't changed that yet, but the premise of another thread is a 4 year deal for Noah at 18MM - That would be the change from that direction

Also letting go of a valuable trade asset for one year rental is NOT a good move and IS a change in direction as well

nixluva wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:The Knicks are doing what they do best. Kill their chances to build something real by going for the sexy trade that does long term damage. Already we are seeing 60 games by Noah will cost us 8MM more than 82 games by Rolo. Then wE will need to add an SG and we don't even have a bench. But apparently it's all good, we have two ball dominant chuckers with injury history and questionable attitudes.And this is the best team we could put around KP. About 7 years ago must of the same folks were so happy that STAT and Melo would just click together.

Sounds about right...

So what is it you like about the Knicks?

I root for the Knicks, like everyone else here. I was definitely liking the path we were on last year, can't say I like them now.

What path was that....

And how do you even know it it a different path.

Maybe it's a winding path.

Maybe Phil Jackson doesn't like to give out directions.

I don't know, the traded Robin Lopez. If Robin Lopez was the Knicks pathfinder, could chance the helicopters would eventually have to be called in to find the hikers.

The path of drafting good players and acquiring young players with high upside and or solid vets at extremely reasonable bargains. Thats how you build goid long term sustainable base IMO. I am not saying Phil doesn't know what he is doing, I am just saying it looks like we changed direction. If Noah gets a 2+year deal at 18MM that's not a good signing,and that's what is being broadly discussed. I do like Noah though, it will be fun to root for him and watch him troll leBron etc

You and others have made this claim that somehow Phil has changed direction. He may have decided to embrace more 3's and PnR within his Triangle, but exactly what makes you say he's changed hid approach or direction? It seems to me he's been consistently doing the same kinds of things since he took over. Vets added and young prospects added. What has changed?

See above - what changed IMO is adding vets with injury and/or character issues - IF we give Noah a 4 year deal at 18MM that would be the indication of a shift in thinking,same for extending Rose beyond first year but we can take a wait and see approach on the latter

RoLo was a very important trade asset in my opinion (The context being - his production,salary and the cap situation) - We should have received more value than a one year rental and a second rounder

meloshouldgo wrote:Yes, I think you can build a team like that - just not in one or two years - I think you gather assets over time and at some point you need a bit of luck, but if we have the right pieces we can score a real big player on a trade that doesn't have health issues and attitude problems.

The clear direction was that we were staying away from starfukks for players with a bunch of baggage or question marks - we haven't changed that yet, but the premise of another thread is a 4 year deal for Noah at 18MM - That would be the change from that direction

Genuine, what's the difference between a "real big player" and a "starfukke" player.

Can you define them and give me examples?

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Yes, I think you can build a team like that - just not in one or two years - I think you gather assets over time and at some point you need a bit of luck, but if we have the right pieces we can score a real big player on a trade that doesn't have health issues and attitude problems.

The clear direction was that we were staying away from starfukks for players with a bunch of baggage or question marks - we haven't changed that yet, but the premise of another thread is a 4 year deal for Noah at 18MM - That would be the change from that direction

Genuine, what's the difference between a "real big player" and a "starfukke" player.

Can you define them and give me examples?

Think I just did? When we get players with more baggage than productivity at max or near max contracts it's a starfukk - Melo with NTC, Noah at 70MM, Eddy Curry, Amare etc
Now if in some kind of scenario we had the assets to trade for tier one player and gave them the max - Horford in this market, CP3 our Durant it would be a good a trade.

meloshouldgo wrote:Now if we were giving Horford a max deal for 4 years - I would have NO ISSUES with that - NONE

I think a lot of teams will offer him a max contract and he'd have no reason to come here. Either Noah really wants to be here or he's expecting that we'll outbid everyone else.

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Yes, I think you can build a team like that - just not in one or two years - I think you gather assets over time and at some point you need a bit of luck, but if we have the right pieces we can score a real big player on a trade that doesn't have health issues and attitude problems.

The clear direction was that we were staying away from starfukks for players with a bunch of baggage or question marks - we haven't changed that yet, but the premise of another thread is a 4 year deal for Noah at 18MM - That would be the change from that direction

Genuine, what's the difference between a "real big player" and a "starfukke" player.

Can you define them and give me examples?

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Yes, I think you can build a team like that - just not in one or two years - I think you gather assets over time and at some point you need a bit of luck, but if we have the right pieces we can score a real big player on a trade that doesn't have health issues and attitude problems.

The clear direction was that we were staying away from starfukks for players with a bunch of baggage or question marks - we haven't changed that yet, but the premise of another thread is a 4 year deal for Noah at 18MM - That would be the change from that direction

Genuine, what's the difference between a "real big player" and a "starfukke" player.

Can you define them and give me examples?

Starphuck - big name overrated player
real big player - I'm guessing he means legit star

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Now if we were giving Horford a max deal for 4 years - I would have NO ISSUES with that - NONE

I think a lot of teams will offer him a max contract and he'd have no reason to come here. Either Noah really wants to be here or he's expecting that we'll outbid everyone else.

No disagreement. I don't think we have a realistic shot at landing Horford right now. But that is not reason for us to go bid against ourselves on overrated players with injury history or attitude problems. And even if we are bidding against other teams we should only offer what's reasonable. In case of Noah a two year guaranteed contract is reasonable. Sorry for the typos, Swype on new Android phone hasn't settled to my style yet

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Now if we were giving Horford a max deal for 4 years - I would have NO ISSUES with that - NONE

I think a lot of teams will offer him a max contract and he'd have no reason to come here. Either Noah really wants to be here or he's expecting that we'll outbid everyone else.

No disagreement. I don't think we have a realistic shot at landing Horford right now. But that is not reason for us to go bid against ourselves on overrated players with injury history or attitude problems. And even if we are bidding against other teams we should only offer what's reasonable. In case of Noah a two year guaranteed contract is reasonable. Sorry for the typos, Swype on new Android phone hasn't settled to my style yet

So what happens when the team only offers what you think are reasonable contracts and then signs no one?

It's a sellers market out there

martin wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Now if we were giving Horford a max deal for 4 years - I would have NO ISSUES with that - NONE

I think a lot of teams will offer him a max contract and he'd have no reason to come here. Either Noah really wants to be here or he's expecting that we'll outbid everyone else.

No disagreement. I don't think we have a realistic shot at landing Horford right now. But that is not reason for us to go bid against ourselves on overrated players with injury history or attitude problems. And even if we are bidding against other teams we should only offer what's reasonable. In case of Noah a two year guaranteed contract is reasonable. Sorry for the typos, Swype on new Android phone hasn't settled to my style yet

So what happens when the team only offers what you think are reasonable contracts and then signs no one?

It's a sellers market out there

+1

Rose has to have a great year in his contract year. He expressed that he was mainly just trying to get thru last season. This is the season he was trying to get to. For both Rose and Noah there is risk but also great upside for the Knicks. Media jokes are one thing but the Knicks could be WAY better than they think. It's worth the risk IMO.

martin wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Now if we were giving Horford a max deal for 4 years - I would have NO ISSUES with that - NONE

I think a lot of teams will offer him a max contract and he'd have no reason to come here. Either Noah really wants to be here or he's expecting that we'll outbid everyone else.

No disagreement. I don't think we have a realistic shot at landing Horford right now. But that is not reason for us to go bid against ourselves on overrated players with injury history or attitude problems. And even if we are bidding against other teams we should only offer what's reasonable. In case of Noah a two year guaranteed contract is reasonable. Sorry for the typos, Swype on new Android phone hasn't settled to my style yet

So what happens when the team only offers what you think are reasonable contracts and then signs no one?

It's a sellers market out there

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Yes, I think you can build a team like that - just not in one or two years - I think you gather assets over time and at some point you need a bit of luck, but if we have the right pieces we can score a real big player on a trade that doesn't have health issues and attitude problems.

The clear direction was that we were staying away from starfukks for players with a bunch of baggage or question marks - we haven't changed that yet, but the premise of another thread is a 4 year deal for Noah at 18MM - That would be the change from that direction

Genuine, what's the difference between a "real big player" and a "starfukke" player.

Can you define them and give me examples?

Think I just did? When we get players with more baggage than productivity at max or near max contracts it's a starfukk - Melo with NTC, Noah at 70MM, Eddy Curry, Amare etc
Now if in some kind of scenario we had the assets to trade for tier one player and gave them the max - Horford in this market, CP3 our Durant it would be a good a trade.

Melo at the time of the ex. was the same age as Horford is now and arguably as if not more productive.

If you like Horford more than Melo, you're entitled to what's a valid personal opinion. You might even make a decent case.

But we don't know if Horford gets NTC or not.

So want to have a discussion that Horford is the better player than Melo was. By all means, have it. Just don't forgot cover the last 5 seasons Horford has played 11 games in one and 29 games in another.

But to label one a "starfukk" just an an expression of a personal opinion without establishing a basis for it just brings the discourse now a couple of notches.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Yes, I think you can build a team like that - just not in one or two years - I think you gather assets over time and at some point you need a bit of luck, but if we have the right pieces we can score a real big player on a trade that doesn't have health issues and attitude problems.

The clear direction was that we were staying away from starfukks for players with a bunch of baggage or question marks - we haven't changed that yet, but the premise of another thread is a 4 year deal for Noah at 18MM - That would be the change from that direction

Genuine, what's the difference between a "real big player" and a "starfukke" player.

Can you define them and give me examples?

Starphuck - big name overrated player
real big player - I'm guessing he means legit star

So utterly a reflection of a subjective personal opinion.

Right.

Has there ever been 3 seven footers in a starting lineup? Lakers?

Noah - 7'0
KP - 7'3
Melo - 6'9
KD - 7'0
Rose - 6'3

Is this even possible? Financially and Theoretically? I guess it would be the best problem to have!

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/242...

martin wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Now if we were giving Horford a max deal for 4 years - I would have NO ISSUES with that - NONE

I think a lot of teams will offer him a max contract and he'd have no reason to come here. Either Noah really wants to be here or he's expecting that we'll outbid everyone else.

No disagreement. I don't think we have a realistic shot at landing Horford right now. But that is not reason for us to go bid against ourselves on overrated players with injury history or attitude problems. And even if we are bidding against other teams we should only offer what's reasonable. In case of Noah a two year guaranteed contract is reasonable. Sorry for the typos, Swype on new Android phone hasn't settled to my style yet

So what happens when the team only offers what you think are reasonable contracts and then signs no one?

It's a sellers market out there

You keep the assets you have instead of trading for one year rentals that then puts you in the position to get into a bidding war for damaged goods. Or basically use common sense, This stuff is case by case.