If your objective is to keep a losing ball player and continue to see him hoist garbage in the 4th quarter and the Knicks not be able to win more than 35 games a season then keep him. Personally I'd trade him for a tuna fish sandwich as he's a cancer. I'd tell him youbstay you'll play 25 minutes a night. Then see if Melo and his brand are willing to go elsewhere.
If your objective is to keep a losing ball player and continue to see him hoist garbage in the 4th quarter and the Knicks not be able to win more than 35 games a season then keep him. Personally I'd trade him for a tuna fish sandwich as he's a cancer. I'd tell him youbstay you'll play 25 minutes a night. Then see if Melo and his brand are willing to go elsewhere.
I doubt a tuna fish sandwich is capable of scoring 22.4 ppg, with close to 6 rpg and 3 apg. Neither is Austin Rivers for whom so many here are keen to trade Melo.
I vividly recall how Knicks fans circa 2000 were blaming Ewing for all the team's shortcomings, calling him a ballhog, a plodder who was slowing down the marvelous Camby-Spree running game, etc. So we traded Ewing for Rice, who may have been in decline at the time, but was still better than Austin Rivers is today. Did it do us any good? I know that it didn't do any good to Ewing and the Sonics either, so that trade was not worth it for anyone. Then what's the point of making a trade here if it will benefit no one (unless Melo really insists on one and commits to helping us get a good return)?
ESOMKnicks wrote:I doubt a tuna fish sandwich is capable of scoring 22.4 ppg, with close to 6 rpg and 3 apg. Neither is Austin Rivers for whom so many here are keen to trade Melo.I vividly recall how Knicks fans circa 2000 were blaming Ewing for all the team's shortcomings, calling him a ballhog, a plodder who was slowing down the marvelous Camby-Spree running game, etc. So we traded Ewing for Rice, who may have been in decline at the time, but was still better than Austin Rivers is today. Did it do us any good? I know that it didn't do any good to Ewing and the Sonics either, so that trade was not worth it for anyone. Then what's the point of making a trade here if it will benefit no one (unless Melo really insists on one and commits to helping us getting a good return)?
its not really about blame. Its about both sides wanting different directions. The Knicks need to continue to rebuild through the draft and melo doesnt want that which i understand. He also doesnt want a reduced role in which KP,Willy,and our upcoming draft pick take bigger roles
If Melo does not want to be a babysitter and wants to go elsewhere to chase the championship, that's fine, and the Knicks should try to oblige. But then they should also tell him to help them make it happen by waiving his trade kickers, etc., so that the Knicks can get a decent return for him. And by decent return I mean a lottery pick, rather than Austin Rivers.
ESOMKnicks wrote:If Melo does not want to be a babysitter and wants to go elsewhere to chase the championship, that's fine, and the Knicks should try to oblige. But then they should also tell him to help them make it happen by waiving his trade kickers, etc., so that the Knicks can get a decent return for him. And by decent return I mean a lottery pick, rather than Austin Rivers.
you arent getting a lottery pick for him. Even in his prime he wasnt the type of player to build a championship contender around. Get the best return you can and move on. We arent winning next year anyway
ESOMKnicks wrote:If Melo does not want to be a babysitter and wants to go elsewhere to chase the championship, that's fine, and the Knicks should try to oblige. But then they should also tell him to help them make it happen by waiving his trade kickers, etc., so that the Knicks can get a decent return for him. And by decent return I mean a lottery pick, rather than Austin Rivers.
He can't just waive his trade kicker. It is pretty complicated but factors include the team receiving Melo's cap situation, how much salary they send out etc. In some situations he could waive part of his trade kicker. But if you want a guy to give up 12 mil to help you out is it good practice to trash him in the media?
CrushAlot wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:If Melo does not want to be a babysitter and wants to go elsewhere to chase the championship, that's fine, and the Knicks should try to oblige. But then they should also tell him to help them make it happen by waiving his trade kickers, etc., so that the Knicks can get a decent return for him. And by decent return I mean a lottery pick, rather than Austin Rivers.
He can't just waive his trade kicker. It is pretty complicated but factors include the team receiving Melo's cap situation, how much salary they send out etc. In some situations he could waive part of his trade kicker. But if you want a guy to give up 12 mil to help you out is it good practice to trash him in the media?
right, it's like selling a car you announce was a lemon
The point is: the Knicks should not try too hard in shopping Melo. We know that they ain't winning a chip in the next couple of years whether it is with him or without him. Rather let him help himself get onto a championship team. And if he refuses to help himself, I see no downside in the Knicks keeping him for another 2 years as opposed to giving him up for a tuna fish sandwich.
ESOMKnicks wrote:The point is: the Knicks should not try too hard in shopping Melo. We know that they ain't winning a chip in the next couple of years whether it is with him or without him. Rather let him help himself get onto a championship team. And if he refuses to help himself, I see no downside in the Knicks keeping him for another 2 years as opposed to giving him up for a tuna fish sandwich.
first off i dont think he is staying here as we are rebuilding especially since kp willy and our pick will be the focus now. Its time for both sides to move on
ESOMKnicks wrote:The point is: the Knicks should not try too hard in shopping Melo. We know that they ain't winning a chip in the next couple of years whether it is with him or without him. Rather let him help himself get onto a championship team. And if he refuses to help himself, I see no downside in the Knicks keeping him for another 2 years as opposed to giving him up for a tuna fish sandwich.
Given the NY media, it would be a problem. Keeping him would likely become a walking-dead situation and the media would keep going after it. It would create a circus and being unable to fully rebuild and move on. Do we really want to put KP, Willy, and our draft pick in a situation where they can't be apart of a new era and a fresh start? It just seems like parting ways is already a little overdue, and stretching it out even more will really hurt.
Knixkik wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:The point is: the Knicks should not try too hard in shopping Melo. We know that they ain't winning a chip in the next couple of years whether it is with him or without him. Rather let him help himself get onto a championship team. And if he refuses to help himself, I see no downside in the Knicks keeping him for another 2 years as opposed to giving him up for a tuna fish sandwich.
Given the NY media, it would be a problem. Keeping him would likely become a walking-dead situation and the media would keep going after it. It would create a circus and being unable to fully rebuild and move on. Do we really want to put KP, Willy, and our draft pick in a situation where they can't be apart of a new era and a fresh start? It just seems like parting ways is already a little overdue, and stretching it out even more will really hurt.
exactly there is no upside at this point. It would just make everything more miserable
There is no upside from trading Melo either. Unless Boston is stupid enough to give us a 2018 lottery pick for him.
I don't think Melo is the type of person who would create a circus. He does care about his image, and would not want the negative PR of being thought of as someone forcing his team to do a lopsided trade to accommodate him. And what do the Knicks have to lose? If he misbehaves or proves to be a cancer, they can simply bench him, and let KP, Willie and whatever other young studs play without him, that's a worst case scenario that is not really that different from not having Melo on the team at all.
If you recall, even with all the drama surrounding his departure from Denver, he enabled the Nuggets to get decent value back.
ESOMKnicks wrote:There is no upside from trading Melo either. Unless Boston is stupid enough to give us a 2018 lottery pick for him.I don't think Melo is the type of person who would create a circus. He does care about his image, and would not want the negative PR of being thought of as someone forcing his team to do a lopsided trade to accommodate him. And what do the Knicks have to lose? If he misbehaves or proves to be a cancer, they can simply bench him, and let KP, Willie and whatever other young studs play without him, that's a worst case scenario that is not really that different from not having Melo on the team at all.
If you recall, even with all the drama surrounding his departure from Denver, he enabled the Nuggets to get decent value back.
the only reason denver got good value back was because james dolan made that trade not donnie walsh
This is really conjecture, but even if it is true, then Donnie Walsh would not have made the trade at all and Melo would have gone to the Nets. But this is not the point, the point is that Melo should be willing to help the Knicks get decent value in return the way he helped the Nuggets, and the Knicks would be foolish to dump him for just about anything, like an Austin Rivers.
ESOMKnicks wrote:This is really conjecture, but even if it is true, then Donnie Walsh would not have made the trade at all and Melo would have gone to the Nets. But this is not the point, the point is that Melo should be willing to help the Knicks get decent value in return the way he helped the Nuggets, and the Knicks would be foolish to dump him for just about anything, like an Austin Rivers.
it is true pretty much everyone knows. Anyway the chances of melo staying here are pretty low regardless of the return. It makes no sense. He isnt gonna take a reduced role and his relationship with phil is broken. Im not taking any sides but its clear that its over
StarksEwing1 wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:There is no upside from trading Melo either. Unless Boston is stupid enough to give us a 2018 lottery pick for him.I don't think Melo is the type of person who would create a circus. He does care about his image, and would not want the negative PR of being thought of as someone forcing his team to do a lopsided trade to accommodate him. And what do the Knicks have to lose? If he misbehaves or proves to be a cancer, they can simply bench him, and let KP, Willie and whatever other young studs play without him, that's a worst case scenario that is not really that different from not having Melo on the team at all.
If you recall, even with all the drama surrounding his departure from Denver, he enabled the Nuggets to get decent value back.
the only reason denver got good value back was because james dolan made that trade not donnie walsh
Walsh made bad trades and bad signings he was just good to the media. If you think the inclusion of Moz pushed that trade over the top for Denver then I agree with you about Dolan. But Moz was 3rd and 2nd string center when he was in Denver.
CrushAlot wrote:StarksEwing1 wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:There is no upside from trading Melo either. Unless Boston is stupid enough to give us a 2018 lottery pick for him.I don't think Melo is the type of person who would create a circus. He does care about his image, and would not want the negative PR of being thought of as someone forcing his team to do a lopsided trade to accommodate him. And what do the Knicks have to lose? If he misbehaves or proves to be a cancer, they can simply bench him, and let KP, Willie and whatever other young studs play without him, that's a worst case scenario that is not really that different from not having Melo on the team at all.
If you recall, even with all the drama surrounding his departure from Denver, he enabled the Nuggets to get decent value back.
the only reason denver got good value back was because james dolan made that trade not donnie walsh
Walsh made bad trades and bad signings he was just good to the media. If you think the inclusion of Moz pushed that trade over the top for Denver then I agree with you about Dolan. But Moz was 3rd and 2nd string center when he was in Denver.
i wasnt even mentioning mozgov...i was never a fan of his. My point was dolan was a major force behind that trade. Also i never said donnie walsh didnt make any bad trades or signing.
Not to say, if I am in Phil's place, with all the criticism over trading Chandler for a low return in Calderon, i would be hesitant in trading a future hall of famer for Rivers, who is essentially a younger Calderon, only without the assists and with a worse 3pt shot.
ESOMKnicks wrote:Not to say, if I am in Phil's place, with all the criticism over trading Chandler for a low return in Calderon, i would be hesitant in trading a future hall of famer for Rivers, who is essentially a younger Calderon, only without the assists and with a worse 3pt shot.
it makes no sense to keep him and he seems like he wants out anyway.
It makes no sense to trade him for nothing either, so either he orchestrates a trade that nets us a decent return, or he should stay and make the best of it.
