Knicks · I like what Phil did at the deadline (page 1)

Plus, I like how Phil actually wanted more assets from the wolves so he would win the trade. Smart man

Maybe if he got the second piece from the wolves he would have flipped koq for a 2017 first

Without the second piece, no trade. Knicks hold all the cards here.

Resign Rose to non-max, then he can trade him.

If Phil doesn't resign Rose, then cap space.

Rubio plays no defense and can't shoot. Dead weight at pg for 2 more years and takes up cap.

Period.

Caseloads wrote:Plus, I like how Phil actually wanted more assets from the wolves so he would win the trade. Smart man

Trading THREE POSITIVE ASSETS ( Robin Lopez, a young player at cost control ( who did not pan out as hoped, but still, there is principle here) and a draft pick) for a net negative asset, how is this smart?

If the Knicks could have gotten on single lousy conditional 2nd round pick for Rose but did not, how is that smart? Anything would be better than nothing for player who has no future here.

The Warriors, IIRC, got a 2nd in a trade, which they used to get Monta Ellis, who they rode hard at cost control, got max value out of his younger years, then traded him to get Bogut ( getting a team to trade big for small, which is always a win for the team getting the big) who helped create a positive defensive culture for the team and helped them win a ring.

Expanding an asset and getting greater returns every time you churn it is smart.

Taking multiple assets and grinding them down into nothing, how is that smart at all?

The Yankees trading for Andrew Miller at a deadline, for a moderate price, then reflipping him later after getting good usage out of him, for a crap ton haul of prospects, that's smart.

You know why the Rockets were able to trade for James Harden and sign Dwight Howard? Not saying that were going to get them a ring, but the GM, Morey, made it simple. Trade two pennies for a nickel. Trade a nickel and a dime for a quarter. Trade three quarters for a dollar. Keep doing it. He kept doing it until he had an asset base to trade for Harden. Then have enough space to sign Howard and still have more assets to keep building the team.

If the Knicks held onto Robin Lopez until this deadline and traded him for some nice young assets, that would have been "smart" Lopez only cost them cap space, he gave them some good usage, and now is a tool to get a nice return. This is what winning teams do. What just happened with Rose, investing in a net negative player, this is what losing teams do.

Dagger wrote:Who are we going to sign with the cap space though? It seems like all the big name players hate our franchise outside of KAT, who is a prisoner of Minnesota for at least a few more years.

You use cap space to help teams trying to clear some, in exchange for picks or talent. Look at the mavs- they took on Bogut and ended up exchanging him for Noel. a season or two ago the Sixers took on a bunch of Kings players (they wanted to clear cap space to make an offer to a player who never came)for a pick at the right to swap if they were top 3 in the lottery.

smackeddog wrote:

Dagger wrote:Who are we going to sign with the cap space though? It seems like all the big name players hate our franchise outside of KAT, who is a prisoner of Minnesota for at least a few more years.

You use cap space to help teams trying to clear some, in exchange for picks or talent. Look at the mavs- they took on Bogut and ended up exchanging him for Noel. a season or two ago the Sixers took on a bunch of Kings players (they wanted to clear cap space to make an offer to a player who never came)for a pick at the right to swap if they were top 3 in the lottery.

Rondo came

TripleThreat wrote:

Caseloads wrote:Plus, I like how Phil actually wanted more assets from the wolves so he would win the trade. Smart man

Trading THREE POSITIVE ASSETS ( Robin Lopez, a young player at cost control ( who did not pan out as hoped, but still, there is principle here) and a draft pick) for a net negative asset, how is this smart?

If the Knicks could have gotten on single lousy conditional 2nd round pick for Rose but did not, how is that smart? Anything would be better than nothing for player who has no future here.

The Warriors, IIRC, got a 2nd in a trade, which they used to get Monta Ellis, who they rode hard at cost control, got max value out of his younger years, then traded him to get Bogut ( getting a team to trade big for small, which is always a win for the team getting the big) who helped create a positive defensive culture for the team and helped them win a ring.

Expanding an asset and getting greater returns every time you churn it is smart.

Taking multiple assets and grinding them down into nothing, how is that smart at all?

The Yankees trading for Andrew Miller at a deadline, for a moderate price, then reflipping him later after getting good usage out of him, for a crap ton haul of prospects, that's smart.

You know why the Rockets were able to trade for James Harden and sign Dwight Howard? Not saying that were going to get them a ring, but the GM, Morey, made it simple. Trade two pennies for a nickel. Trade a nickel and a dime for a quarter. Trade three quarters for a dollar. Keep doing it. He kept doing it until he had an asset base to trade for Harden. Then have enough space to sign Howard and still have more assets to keep building the team.

If the Knicks held onto Robin Lopez until this deadline and traded him for some nice young assets, that would have been "smart" Lopez only cost them cap space, he gave them some good usage, and now is a tool to get a nice return. This is what winning teams do. What just happened with Rose, investing in a net negative player, this is what losing teams do.

Rose is good. Nothing wrong with him physically. Just mentally.

TripleThreat wrote:

Caseloads wrote:Plus, I like how Phil actually wanted more assets from the wolves so he would win the trade. Smart man

Trading THREE POSITIVE ASSETS ( Robin Lopez, a young player at cost control ( who did not pan out as hoped, but still, there is principle here) and a draft pick) for a net negative asset, how is this smart?

If the Knicks could have gotten on single lousy conditional 2nd round pick for Rose but did not, how is that smart? Anything would be better than nothing for player who has no future here.

The Warriors, IIRC, got a 2nd in a trade, which they used to get Monta Ellis, who they rode hard at cost control, got max value out of his younger years, then traded him to get Bogut ( getting a team to trade big for small, which is always a win for the team getting the big) who helped create a positive defensive culture for the team and helped them win a ring.

Expanding an asset and getting greater returns every time you churn it is smart.

Taking multiple assets and grinding them down into nothing, how is that smart at all?

The Yankees trading for Andrew Miller at a deadline, for a moderate price, then reflipping him later after getting good usage out of him, for a crap ton haul of prospects, that's smart.

You know why the Rockets were able to trade for James Harden and sign Dwight Howard? Not saying that were going to get them a ring, but the GM, Morey, made it simple. Trade two pennies for a nickel. Trade a nickel and a dime for a quarter. Trade three quarters for a dollar. Keep doing it. He kept doing it until he had an asset base to trade for Harden. Then have enough space to sign Howard and still have more assets to keep building the team.

If the Knicks held onto Robin Lopez until this deadline and traded him for some nice young assets, that would have been "smart" Lopez only cost them cap space, he gave them some good usage, and now is a tool to get a nice return. This is what winning teams do. What just happened with Rose, investing in a net negative player, this is what losing teams do.

Aren't all the youngs we have pennies, nickels, dimes and quarters? Kp is a silver dollar too.

Only limited player is Noah, and even he has worth

TripleThreat wrote:

Caseloads wrote:Plus, I like how Phil actually wanted more assets from the wolves so he would win the trade. Smart man

Trading THREE POSITIVE ASSETS ( Robin Lopez, a young player at cost control ( who did not pan out as hoped, but still, there is principle here) and a draft pick) for a net negative asset, how is this smart?

If the Knicks could have gotten on single lousy conditional 2nd round pick for Rose but did not, how is that smart? Anything would be better than nothing for player who has no future here.

The Warriors, IIRC, got a 2nd in a trade, which they used to get Monta Ellis, who they rode hard at cost control, got max value out of his younger years, then traded him to get Bogut ( getting a team to trade big for small, which is always a win for the team getting the big) who helped create a positive defensive culture for the team and helped them win a ring.

Expanding an asset and getting greater returns every time you churn it is smart.

Taking multiple assets and grinding them down into nothing, how is that smart at all?

The Yankees trading for Andrew Miller at a deadline, for a moderate price, then reflipping him later after getting good usage out of him, for a crap ton haul of prospects, that's smart.

You know why the Rockets were able to trade for James Harden and sign Dwight Howard? Not saying that were going to get them a ring, but the GM, Morey, made it simple. Trade two pennies for a nickel. Trade a nickel and a dime for a quarter. Trade three quarters for a dollar. Keep doing it. He kept doing it until he had an asset base to trade for Harden. Then have enough space to sign Howard and still have more assets to keep building the team.

If the Knicks held onto Robin Lopez until this deadline and traded him for some nice young assets, that would have been "smart" Lopez only cost them cap space, he gave them some good usage, and now is a tool to get a nice return. This is what winning teams do. What just happened with Rose, investing in a net negative player, this is what losing teams do.

The knicks did get a 2nd rd pick in the deal and Holiday. However the deal was dumb because it was rushed. Who were the knicks bidding against? No one wanted to take on that salary and the bulls were likely ready to pay someone to take him off their hands but I guess Phil wanted Rose despite the obvious concerns. Another thing that hurt was Phil's terrible habit of anchoring his assets with dead weight(Calderon). He did that with Tyson(Felton) and Shump(JR) deal too.

Also, the Lopez deal hurts twice because it open the door to Noah's contract

yellowboy90 wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

Caseloads wrote:Plus, I like how Phil actually wanted more assets from the wolves so he would win the trade. Smart man

Trading THREE POSITIVE ASSETS ( Robin Lopez, a young player at cost control ( who did not pan out as hoped, but still, there is principle here) and a draft pick) for a net negative asset, how is this smart?

If the Knicks could have gotten on single lousy conditional 2nd round pick for Rose but did not, how is that smart? Anything would be better than nothing for player who has no future here.

The Warriors, IIRC, got a 2nd in a trade, which they used to get Monta Ellis, who they rode hard at cost control, got max value out of his younger years, then traded him to get Bogut ( getting a team to trade big for small, which is always a win for the team getting the big) who helped create a positive defensive culture for the team and helped them win a ring.

Expanding an asset and getting greater returns every time you churn it is smart.

Taking multiple assets and grinding them down into nothing, how is that smart at all?

The Yankees trading for Andrew Miller at a deadline, for a moderate price, then reflipping him later after getting good usage out of him, for a crap ton haul of prospects, that's smart.

You know why the Rockets were able to trade for James Harden and sign Dwight Howard? Not saying that were going to get them a ring, but the GM, Morey, made it simple. Trade two pennies for a nickel. Trade a nickel and a dime for a quarter. Trade three quarters for a dollar. Keep doing it. He kept doing it until he had an asset base to trade for Harden. Then have enough space to sign Howard and still have more assets to keep building the team.

If the Knicks held onto Robin Lopez until this deadline and traded him for some nice young assets, that would have been "smart" Lopez only cost them cap space, he gave them some good usage, and now is a tool to get a nice return. This is what winning teams do. What just happened with Rose, investing in a net negative player, this is what losing teams do.

The knicks did get a 2nd rd pick in the deal and Holiday. However the deal was dumb because it was rushed. Who were the knicks bidding against? No one wanted to take on that salary and the bulls were likely ready to pay someone to take him off their hands but I guess Phil wanted Rose despite the obvious concerns. Another thing that hurt was Phil's terrible habit of anchoring his assets with dead weight(Calderon). He did that with Tyson(Felton) and Shump(JR) deal too.

Also, the Lopez deal hurts twice because it open the door to Noah's contract

Wow, you have a lot of assumptions in this post but no facts.

Also, I think Rubio for Rose was a clear and massive upgrade. That move should've been made straight up. It was a no-brainer, especially given Phil's major complaint about the team is lack of ball movement. Truly a missed opportunity to try to land Rubio.

newyorker4ever wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

Caseloads wrote:Plus, I like how Phil actually wanted more assets from the wolves so he would win the trade. Smart man

Trading THREE POSITIVE ASSETS ( Robin Lopez, a young player at cost control ( who did not pan out as hoped, but still, there is principle here) and a draft pick) for a net negative asset, how is this smart?

If the Knicks could have gotten on single lousy conditional 2nd round pick for Rose but did not, how is that smart? Anything would be better than nothing for player who has no future here.

The Warriors, IIRC, got a 2nd in a trade, which they used to get Monta Ellis, who they rode hard at cost control, got max value out of his younger years, then traded him to get Bogut ( getting a team to trade big for small, which is always a win for the team getting the big) who helped create a positive defensive culture for the team and helped them win a ring.

Expanding an asset and getting greater returns every time you churn it is smart.

Taking multiple assets and grinding them down into nothing, how is that smart at all?

The Yankees trading for Andrew Miller at a deadline, for a moderate price, then reflipping him later after getting good usage out of him, for a crap ton haul of prospects, that's smart.

You know why the Rockets were able to trade for James Harden and sign Dwight Howard? Not saying that were going to get them a ring, but the GM, Morey, made it simple. Trade two pennies for a nickel. Trade a nickel and a dime for a quarter. Trade three quarters for a dollar. Keep doing it. He kept doing it until he had an asset base to trade for Harden. Then have enough space to sign Howard and still have more assets to keep building the team.

If the Knicks held onto Robin Lopez until this deadline and traded him for some nice young assets, that would have been "smart" Lopez only cost them cap space, he gave them some good usage, and now is a tool to get a nice return. This is what winning teams do. What just happened with Rose, investing in a net negative player, this is what losing teams do.

The knicks did get a 2nd rd pick in the deal and Holiday. However the deal was dumb because it was rushed. Who were the knicks bidding against? No one wanted to take on that salary and the bulls were likely ready to pay someone to take him off their hands but I guess Phil wanted Rose despite the obvious concerns. Another thing that hurt was Phil's terrible habit of anchoring his assets with dead weight(Calderon). He did that with Tyson(Felton) and Shump(JR) deal too.

Also, the Lopez deal hurts twice because it open the door to Noah's contract

Wow, you have a lot of assumptions in this post but no facts.

Fact: the knicks did get a 2nd rd pick

I guess I just disproved your post.

Fact: Phil did anchor his assets with dead weight

I guess I just disproved your post. again

Yes, some assumptions where made based on the articles that came out at the time. Who else was Rose linked too. Any one? What we do know was his play had been awful for the last few years and Chicago was desperate to get rid of him kind of like how Toronto was desperate to get rid of Bargs.

crzymdups wrote:Best thing you can say about Phil at the deadline is that he didn't give up any picks. But I feel he could've gotten some.

Also, I think Rubio for Rose was a clear and massive upgrade. That move should've been made straight up. It was a no-brainer, especially given Phil's major complaint about the team is lack of ball movement. Truly a missed opportunity to try to land Rubio.

Like I said, missing out on Rubio makes sense if Phil has decided to do the clippers/Melo trade in the offseason- I wouldn't want Rivers and Rubio on this team, I'd rather have one plus the cap space.

crzymdups wrote:Best thing you can say about Phil at the deadline is that he didn't give up any picks. But I feel he could've gotten some.

Also, I think Rubio for Rose was a clear and massive upgrade. That move should've been made straight up. It was a no-brainer, especially given Phil's major complaint about the team is lack of ball movement. Truly a missed opportunity to try to land Rubio.

smackeddog wrote:

crzymdups wrote:Best thing you can say about Phil at the deadline is that he didn't give up any picks. But I feel he could've gotten some.

Also, I think Rubio for Rose was a clear and massive upgrade. That move should've been made straight up. It was a no-brainer, especially given Phil's major complaint about the team is lack of ball movement. Truly a missed opportunity to try to land Rubio.

Like I said, missing out on Rubio makes sense if Phil has decided to do the clippers/Melo trade in the offseason- I wouldn't want Rivers and Rubio on this team, I'd rather have one plus the cap space.

Yeah, at this point obviously we have to wait and see what happens with Melo. Maybe Phil was trying to frustrate Melo more by doing nothing at the deadline. I guess we'll see.

But I don't think it's a given they can trade him to the Clippers in the offseason. It's the best bet, but a trade of Melo for Rivers and Crawford is not a good one and all indications are that both teams tried to find a taker for Craw and could not. I actually think Philly would be a good destination for Crawford, as the Sixers could use a veteran guard to help their kids and spread the floor, and the tried to sign both Crawford and Ginobili to high-paying, short term deals.

Maybe the Clippers lose in the first round and they're more motivated to get this done in the off-season as a way to convince CP3 to re-sign.

That said - I would much rather have Rubio and Melo than Austin Rivers and whatever Crawford gets moved for. I would also much rather just have Rubio than Austin Rivers.

yellowboy90 wrote:

newyorker4ever wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

Caseloads wrote:Plus, I like how Phil actually wanted more assets from the wolves so he would win the trade. Smart man

Trading THREE POSITIVE ASSETS ( Robin Lopez, a young player at cost control ( who did not pan out as hoped, but still, there is principle here) and a draft pick) for a net negative asset, how is this smart?

If the Knicks could have gotten on single lousy conditional 2nd round pick for Rose but did not, how is that smart? Anything would be better than nothing for player who has no future here.

The Warriors, IIRC, got a 2nd in a trade, which they used to get Monta Ellis, who they rode hard at cost control, got max value out of his younger years, then traded him to get Bogut ( getting a team to trade big for small, which is always a win for the team getting the big) who helped create a positive defensive culture for the team and helped them win a ring.

Expanding an asset and getting greater returns every time you churn it is smart.

Taking multiple assets and grinding them down into nothing, how is that smart at all?

The Yankees trading for Andrew Miller at a deadline, for a moderate price, then reflipping him later after getting good usage out of him, for a crap ton haul of prospects, that's smart.

You know why the Rockets were able to trade for James Harden and sign Dwight Howard? Not saying that were going to get them a ring, but the GM, Morey, made it simple. Trade two pennies for a nickel. Trade a nickel and a dime for a quarter. Trade three quarters for a dollar. Keep doing it. He kept doing it until he had an asset base to trade for Harden. Then have enough space to sign Howard and still have more assets to keep building the team.

If the Knicks held onto Robin Lopez until this deadline and traded him for some nice young assets, that would have been "smart" Lopez only cost them cap space, he gave them some good usage, and now is a tool to get a nice return. This is what winning teams do. What just happened with Rose, investing in a net negative player, this is what losing teams do.

The knicks did get a 2nd rd pick in the deal and Holiday. However the deal was dumb because it was rushed. Who were the knicks bidding against? No one wanted to take on that salary and the bulls were likely ready to pay someone to take him off their hands but I guess Phil wanted Rose despite the obvious concerns. Another thing that hurt was Phil's terrible habit of anchoring his assets with dead weight(Calderon). He did that with Tyson(Felton) and Shump(JR) deal too.

Also, the Lopez deal hurts twice because it open the door to Noah's contract

Wow, you have a lot of assumptions in this post but no facts.

Fact: the knicks did get a 2nd rd pick

I guess I just disproved your post.

Fact: Phil did anchor his assets with dead weight

I guess I just disproved your post. again

Yes, some assumptions where made based on the articles that came out at the time. Who else was Rose linked too. Any one? What we do know was his play had been awful for the last few years and Chicago was desperate to get rid of him kind of like how Toronto was desperate to get rid of Bargs.

Justin Holiday is better then Jerian Grant at this moment. Taking a shot at Derek Rose for one season was a worthwhile risk over what Robin Lopez brought to the table with 3 years remaining on his contract. The only issue I have always had is the amount of years he gave Noah which has nothing to do with the actual Rose trade. Even though ideally Noah's defense, passing, Intangibles were perfect for this team. He just doesn't have it anymore. But even that is somewhat smoothed over by finding Willie in the 2nd round and the bargain deal he has KOQ on.

crzymdups wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

crzymdups wrote:Best thing you can say about Phil at the deadline is that he didn't give up any picks. But I feel he could've gotten some.

Also, I think Rubio for Rose was a clear and massive upgrade. That move should've been made straight up. It was a no-brainer, especially given Phil's major complaint about the team is lack of ball movement. Truly a missed opportunity to try to land Rubio.

Like I said, missing out on Rubio makes sense if Phil has decided to do the clippers/Melo trade in the offseason- I wouldn't want Rivers and Rubio on this team, I'd rather have one plus the cap space.

Yeah, at this point obviously we have to wait and see what happens with Melo. Maybe Phil was trying to frustrate Melo more by doing nothing at the deadline. I guess we'll see.

But I don't think it's a given they can trade him to the Clippers in the offseason. It's the best bet, but a trade of Melo for Rivers and Crawford is not a good one and all indications are that both teams tried to find a taker for Craw and could not. I actually think Philly would be a good destination for Crawford, as the Sixers could use a veteran guard to help their kids and spread the floor, and the tried to sign both Crawford and Ginobili to high-paying, short term deals.

Maybe the Clippers lose in the first round and they're more motivated to get this done in the off-season as a way to convince CP3 to re-sign.

That said - I would much rather have Rubio and Melo than Austin Rivers and whatever Crawford gets moved for. I would also much rather just have Rubio than Austin Rivers.

Also, I think Melo will be more willing to be traded in the offseason because at that point he'll realize he can opt out after next season and we need to make it clear we have ZERO interest in re-signing him. He doesn't care too much about winning, but he does care about his money.

Caseloads wrote:

crzymdups wrote:Best thing you can say about Phil at the deadline is that he didn't give up any picks. But I feel he could've gotten some.

Also, I think Rubio for Rose was a clear and massive upgrade. That move should've been made straight up. It was a no-brainer, especially given Phil's major complaint about the team is lack of ball movement. Truly a missed opportunity to try to land Rubio.

then we would have complained about Rubio's lack of shooting, lack of driving, lack of drawing fouls, and lack of defense once here - all locked in for 2 more years. And lack of cap space.

Rubio is not perfect, but if Rubio could shoot he'd be an all-star and not available in trades.

My gripe is that Rose is clearly toxic to the team at this point, it may not be Rose's fault, he's never really been out of Chicago and he doesn't seem to be in a good place to do that now. I also just wonder about the original trade for Rose itself - does anyone else think it is kinda weird that Rose had a press conference here and Phil, Steve Mills, and Hornacek were all absent from it? Not a great show of support from Day One.

My other gripe is that the only things we have heard Phil complain about this year is Melo holding the ball and lack of team ball movement. And yet we've seen that when Melo plays with a PG who moves the ball like Billups or Kidd, he holds the ball less and moves the ball more. To me it was a no brainer trade.

I honestly think we're getting shut out in FA this year. Players look at the Garden and see a dysfunctional mess. They know Melo is not happy, Rose is miserable, the Oakley incident, etc. We need something to improve our image. Moving Rose to reunite with his old coach and bringing in a young passing PG who might have better chemistry with Willy and KP could have been a win on the court, in terms of public image, etc. To me it was a no-brainer on every possible level. If the goal is to draft a rookie PG, you move Rubio to the bench to be a reasonably priced back up / insurance policy in case the rookie PG takes a while to develop. Also, Hornacek has been known to love playing two PG at once.

Anyway, it's a lost cause now, but I think it was a big swing and a miss by Phil not to get that deal done.

They could have picked up PG also and really pulled a GSW East

Caseloads wrote:the celtics really missed out at the deadline this year. they are unlikely to win the championship this year, and they could have picked up butler, who is young enough and tough enough to grow with the core, and could have put some scare into the Cavs.

They could have picked up PG also and really pulled a GSW East

Yeah, I agree with this. I think the time was ripe for the Celtics to pick up at least one star, if not two. From all indications Ainge did make the Brooklyn pick available in the Paul George discussions... that would've been insane for them. To me Paul George fits the Celtics better than Butler.

The most crazy thing about the Celtics is that this wasn't their last chance. They can still make a power move at the draft. They can also still be in the same situation in 2018, because the Nets will be terrible next year and the Celtics have that pick, too.

Or, they can just draft two young studs and plan to build for like 3, 4 years down the road when the Warriors dynasty is slowly down.

newyorknewyork wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

newyorker4ever wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

Caseloads wrote:Plus, I like how Phil actually wanted more assets from the wolves so he would win the trade. Smart man

Trading THREE POSITIVE ASSETS ( Robin Lopez, a young player at cost control ( who did not pan out as hoped, but still, there is principle here) and a draft pick) for a net negative asset, how is this smart?

If the Knicks could have gotten on single lousy conditional 2nd round pick for Rose but did not, how is that smart? Anything would be better than nothing for player who has no future here.

The Warriors, IIRC, got a 2nd in a trade, which they used to get Monta Ellis, who they rode hard at cost control, got max value out of his younger years, then traded him to get Bogut ( getting a team to trade big for small, which is always a win for the team getting the big) who helped create a positive defensive culture for the team and helped them win a ring.

Expanding an asset and getting greater returns every time you churn it is smart.

Taking multiple assets and grinding them down into nothing, how is that smart at all?

The Yankees trading for Andrew Miller at a deadline, for a moderate price, then reflipping him later after getting good usage out of him, for a crap ton haul of prospects, that's smart.

You know why the Rockets were able to trade for James Harden and sign Dwight Howard? Not saying that were going to get them a ring, but the GM, Morey, made it simple. Trade two pennies for a nickel. Trade a nickel and a dime for a quarter. Trade three quarters for a dollar. Keep doing it. He kept doing it until he had an asset base to trade for Harden. Then have enough space to sign Howard and still have more assets to keep building the team.

If the Knicks held onto Robin Lopez until this deadline and traded him for some nice young assets, that would have been "smart" Lopez only cost them cap space, he gave them some good usage, and now is a tool to get a nice return. This is what winning teams do. What just happened with Rose, investing in a net negative player, this is what losing teams do.

The knicks did get a 2nd rd pick in the deal and Holiday. However the deal was dumb because it was rushed. Who were the knicks bidding against? No one wanted to take on that salary and the bulls were likely ready to pay someone to take him off their hands but I guess Phil wanted Rose despite the obvious concerns. Another thing that hurt was Phil's terrible habit of anchoring his assets with dead weight(Calderon). He did that with Tyson(Felton) and Shump(JR) deal too.

Also, the Lopez deal hurts twice because it open the door to Noah's contract

Wow, you have a lot of assumptions in this post but no facts.

Fact: the knicks did get a 2nd rd pick

I guess I just disproved your post.

Fact: Phil did anchor his assets with dead weight

I guess I just disproved your post. again

Yes, some assumptions where made based on the articles that came out at the time. Who else was Rose linked too. Any one? What we do know was his play had been awful for the last few years and Chicago was desperate to get rid of him kind of like how Toronto was desperate to get rid of Bargs.

Justin Holiday is better then Jerian Grant at this moment. Taking a shot at Derek Rose for one season was a worthwhile risk over what Robin Lopez brought to the table with 3 years remaining on his contract. The only issue I have always had is the amount of years he gave Noah which has nothing to do with the actual Rose trade. Even though ideally Noah's defense, passing, Intangibles were perfect for this team. He just doesn't have it anymore. But even that is somewhat smoothed over by finding Willie in the 2nd round and the bargain deal he has KOQ on.

Justin Holiday has played better than I ever expected and has really been a decent player but he is turning 28 in April and is up for a raise. On a vet minimum deal he is a good value guy but if he gets a deal like Lance Thomas he would be terrible because Holiday is still a below average to maybe average player. Also, Jerian Grant is younger and quietly has a better TS%, WS/48, BPM, Vorp, Ast%, Ortg, Drtg and STl%. Plus he is on a rookie contract. It took Holiday time to find his footing and he started out much worse than Grant.

Rose was never a better risk because he had become a terrible player since his injuries. There was a reason some questioned rather Calderon was a better defensive player than Rose when some posters kept pumping up how "great" Rose looked to close the year with the bulls. Why anyone would trade a good player for a terrible player is beyond me especially when it creates two holes. It creates a hole at the center position and also the PG position because Rose doesn't fill in the hole he makes it deeper.

On top of that Phil created a public relations mess when he knew about the civil trial before he traded for Rose. How do you bring in a guy with so much baggage on the court and off the court if you are trying to change the culture?