# Marcin Gortat...



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

We're in desperate need of a defensive backbone and a legitimate center. I believe that Marcin Gortat, for all his flaws is capable of filling that role and at a fraction of the price of a Tyson Chandler/Samuel Dalembert type player. He appears to be very capable of posting a double double consistently and may actually turn out to be one of the best rebounders in the league. Additionally, Gortat is a pretty good defensive player that blocks quite a few shots when given time. 

I doubt that Gortat will command much more than the MLE given our current economic situation, so I suggest the Knicks look to offer him the full amount possible. This probably would make most people reluctant given our recent history of MLE signee's Jared Jefferies and Jerome James but this guy is different. First off, Gortat is only 25 years old and never had a history of being out-of-shape like the 29 year old Jerome James we signed. Unlike Jared Jefferies, Gortat has actually demonstrated his ability to make a difference statistically and plays a position devoid of efficient players.

Although we would be taking quite a risk on Gortat financially, he avoids us from taking an even bigger one signing David Lee to $10+million a year. In doing so, we preserve Donnie Walsh's plan to have as much cash available for 2010 while supplementing one of our weakest positions with solid play. For the record, I would strongly consider a sign and trade of David Lee and Nate Robinson for Charlie Villaneuva, Charlie Bell and Ramon Sessions.

Another move to look at for this offseason would be purchasing the Suns lottery pick and then exchanging it along with both Larry Hughes and Al Harrington for Vince Carter and the Nets lottery pick. 

Then a 3 way trade between the Knicks, Pacers and Mavericks sending Matt Carroll, Shawn Williams and Jerry Stackhouse to the Knicks; Jamal Tinsley and Jared Jefferies to the Mavericks; and Eddy Curry to the Pacers. 

And last, Vince Carter and Quentin Richardson for Tracy McGrady.


*
ROSTER OUTLOOK*
*Starters*
Chris Duhon...PG
Tracy McGrady...SG
Wilson Chandler...SF
Charlie Villanueva...PF
Marcin Gortat...C
*Reserves*
Ramon Sessions...PG
Charlie Bell...SG
Danilo Gallinari...F
Chris Wilcox...F/C (extend qualifying offer and resign)
*Bench Fodder*
Jerry Stackhouse...G/F
Cuttino Mobley...SG
Matt Carroll...G
Shawn Williams...F
Our 2009 First Round Draft Pick
The Net's 2009 First Round Draft Pick


----------



## urwhatueati8god (May 27, 2003)

Tracy McGrady can't play next year. He'll be out until at least march.

Trading for Villanueva defeats the purpose of not re-signing David Lee. Ramon Sessions and Charlie Bell are only getting paid four million combined, and Villanueva for Lee is a moot point. Charlie Bell kind of sucks, and Ramon Sessions versus Nate Robinson is a moot point also.

The Nets aren't that desperate to trade away Vince Carter for a package of Larry Hughes and Al Harrington, especially if it means they have to dispose of their first round lottery pick to move down.

All indications point to the Suns having to rebuild now and trading their first round lottery pick is not how teams rebuild.

If Marcin Gortat goes for the M.L.E., he's a steal and should absolutely be acquired. I think he will go for that and I would hope the Knicks would make a pitch for him.

The Pacers already have a veteran center in Jeff Foster signed for six million next year. His scoring isn't as good as Eddy Curry, but he does everything else better, including being the top offensive rebounder in the league. For potential, they have Roy Hibbert at center. Also, the move does not work for the Pacers.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

urwhatueati8god said:


> Tracy McGrady can't play next year. He'll be out until at least march.


Not according to what has recently been published regarding his injury. According to Sportsline, McGrady might not be ready for training camp but will possibly be ready for opening night in November. In either case the guy has a $20 million expiring contract, which is why I'd be interested in him. If he can play, it makes things all the more better but if not, we still have adequate backcourt depth.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/players/playerpage/6691



urwhatueati8god said:


> Trading for Villanueva defeats the purpose of not re-signing David Lee. Ramon Sessions and Charlie Bell are only getting paid four million combined, and Villanueva for Lee is a moot point. Charlie Bell kind of sucks, and Ramon Sessions versus Nate Robinson is a moot point also.


Villanueva likely will command much less than David Lee but still could have as major an impact in the game because of how well-suited he is for this system; far from the mute acquisition that your suggesting. Ramon Sessions is a FA FYI. He may not be able to fly through the air over 7 ft'ers but he runs an offense especially well and is a double double threat if given starter minutes; something that Nate can not boast. Hell, he's a starter on our team and would likely be one of its better players. We might not be able to say the same about Charlie Bell but he is still a solid bench player that has ton of experience playing Euro ball. He could be a solid addition to this team off the bench and doesn't have the same recklessness of a Nate Robinson. If we could save that $4 million a year I'd do it but because of cap restrictions, we'd have to trade for it. I think we could move Bell for a contract later on if need be.



urwhatueati8god said:


> The Nets aren't that desperate to trade away Vince Carter for a package of Larry Hughes and Al Harrington, especially if it means they have to dispose of their first round lottery pick to move down.


Really? They were rumored to have wanted little more than contracts at the deadline for Vince; one of those teams were the Spurs. Considering the caliber of player that Vince is, that sounds a lot like desperation. Hughes and Harrington are each individually better than any of the players in that Spurs deal and also have the star power to actually supplant Vince's role with the Nets. I also doubt the Nets would be reluctant to move down in the draft considering their desire to cut costs and the quality of talent in this draft.



urwhatueati8god said:


> All indications point to the Suns having to rebuild now and trading their first round lottery pick is not how teams rebuild.
> 
> If Marcin Gortat goes for the M.L.E., he's a steal and should absolutely be acquired. I think he will go for that and I would hope the Knicks would make a pitch for him.


Again, really? Since when do you rebuild by publicly stating your desire to keep a 30-some-odd year PG as the cornerstone of a franchise? Doesn't make sense, just like trying to move your 25 year old all-star PF. Given the Suns recent trade history and tradition of cutting costs, I think that that draft pick would be in play.



urwhatueati8god said:


> The Pacers already have a veteran center in Jeff Foster signed for six million next year. His scoring isn't as good as Eddy Curry, but he does everything else better, including being the top offensive rebounder in the league. For potential, they have Roy Hibbert at center. Also, the move does not work for the Pacers.


The Pacers do have Foster and Hibbert but neither provide the kind of low post scoring that we've seen from Eddy Curry. In this sense, he provides another demension to this team that has been valued by a number of team's across the league. Although Curry has been banged up recently, the Pacers are not making any sort of gamble considering that the guy they'd be exchanging them for has been removed from the team to begin with. No one is going to trade for Tinsley and the Pacers are obviously not going to play him; so this deal does work from the Pacers standpoint. It may not work financially but a minor contract certainly would fix that problem.


----------



## urwhatueati8god (May 27, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> Not according to what has recently been published regarding his injury. According to Sportsline, McGrady might not be ready for training camp but will possibly be ready for opening night in November. In either case the guy has a $20 million expiring contract, which is why I'd be interested in him. If he can play, it makes things all the more better but if not, we still have adequate backcourt depth.
> 
> http://www.cbssports.com/nba/players/playerpage/6691


Fair enough if he's only being considered for the expiring contract.



TwinkieFoot said:


> Villanueva likely will command much less than David Lee but still could have as major an impact in the game because of how well-suited he is for this system; far from the mute acquisition that your suggesting. Ramon Sessions is a FA FYI. He may not be able to fly through the air over 7 ft'ers but he runs an offense especially well and is a double double threat if given starter minutes; something that Nate can not boast. Hell, he's a starter on our team and would likely be one of its better players. We might not be able to say the same about Charlie Bell but he is still a solid bench player that has ton of experience playing Euro ball. He could be a solid addition to this team off the bench and doesn't have the same recklessness of a Nate Robinson. If we could save that $4 million a year I'd do it but because of cap restrictions, we'd have to trade for it. I think we could move Bell for a contract later on if need be.


The differences between Villanueva and Lee were nearly immeasurable when their numbers are broken down side by side over the course of last year. Lee is a better at rebounding and better put-back guy, but Villanueva is a better defender, ball handler, passer, and shooter. I really don't see how either one is going to command that much more salary than the other. Their P.E.R.'s are nearly identical (19.0 for Lee, 18.6 for Villanueva) and being that P.E.R. doesn't really measure defensive merits, at least some G.M.'s are going to view Villanueva as the better prospect.

I agree on the Sessions point, but I don't think he's worth taking back Villanueva for.



TwinkieFoot said:


> Really? They were rumored to have wanted little more than contracts at the deadline for Vince; one of those teams were the Spurs. Considering the caliber of player that Vince is, that sounds a lot like desperation. Hughes and Harrington are each individually better than any of the players in that Spurs deal and also have the star power to actually supplant Vince's role with the Nets. I also doubt the Nets would be reluctant to move down in the draft considering their desire to cut costs and the quality of talent in this draft.


That was then. This is now. Joe Dumars is interested in Vince Carter and is willing supposedly willing to move Tayshaun Prince and Kwame Brown for Carter in a move that would prove that Dumars is a completely overrated general manager.



TwinkieFoot said:


> Again, really? Since when do you rebuild by publicly stating your desire to keep a 30-some-odd year PG as the cornerstone of a franchise? Doesn't make sense, just like trying to move your 25 year old all-star PF. Given the Suns recent trade history and tradition of cutting costs, I think that that draft pick would be in play.


The main reason that they won't move Nash is because Phoenix management is too afraid that moving him would result in a less exciting style of play which would result in less of a fan base and less revenue. Amare Stoudemire was rumored to be involved in the trades to the bulls for their hot garbage and the Warriors for their hot garbage. Both are blatant signs of rebuilding and Steve Kerr's job is likely in jeopardy.



TwinkieFoot said:


> The Pacers do have Foster and Hibbert but neither provide the kind of low post scoring that we've seen from Eddy Curry. In this sense, he provides another (dimension) to this team that has been valued by a number of team's across the league. Although Curry has been banged up recently, the Pacers are not making any sort of gamble considering that the guy they'd be exchanging them for has been removed from the team to begin with. No one is going to trade for Tinsley and the Pacers are obviously not going to play him; so this deal does work from the Pacers standpoint. It may not work financially but a minor contract certainly would fix that problem.


Eddy Curry is not in usable shape. He was winded after a mere five minutes of practice time. While the Pacers will move Tinsley for next to nothing, Curry is not next to nothing, he is nothing. The guy has no potential tag left on him anymore. He's just garbage. In order for the Knicks to move him, they will have to give up some other viable cog. That's just the blatant reality of it. I could see it happening if the Knicks include Wilson Chandler for Brandon Rush and Travis Diener, but I still question whether or not Dallas would make this move as well.


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

Wow Twinkie u n Ur got a good conversation going.... 

If the Knicks had a BIGMAN training coach like Patrick Ewing Sr. than they could go after Marcin Gortat as their center. 
My bad....Ewing is Marcin Gortat training-coach....another decent playoff game like Gortat had vs Philly, and the Orlando Magic will resign both Gortat & Ewing long term (for the health of Dwight Howard). 

If Houston vs the Lakers become an exciting 6 to 7 game series look for Artest to be resigned and Tracy Mcgrady contract traded this offseason (for that missing piece....a double-double PF to put between Yao & Artest). 

Lee's value and salary will be higher than Villaneuva for a couple of reasons....Lee is a natural rebounding PF whom talents been improving each season in the NBA....Villanueva has improved his talents since bein a rookie but....he is a strong-solid SF struggling to be a Boozer. 

Vince Carter has become the NBA hardest-puzzle to find the pieces too.... 
Carter will whind-up apart of a sign and trade in 2009 or 2010. 

Dumars 2009-Plan or 2010-Plan may backfire on him for not letting Chauncy Billups retire as a Piston. 

The Spurs are rebuilding for the 2010-11 Championship Ring....so they will be shopping for alot of young-players this offseason.
And Ramon Session or Harris will be overjoyed gettin an offer-sheet from Spurs. 

*I'm giving Eddie Curry another chance....*under the right team "Program" Curry would flourish in the next 4 to 5 years. 
*Having talent is good, but having a coach to show u how to use that talent is GREAT.*

This Knick organization refuse to cater to Curry needs which was getting a veteran-center coach to train him as a center. 
The Knicks orgainization knew about Curry being out of shape for all coach Scott Skiles Bulls training camp sessions....yet the Knicks never thought to put any pressure on Curry during the offseason to stay in-shape for training-camp. 
There should've been an overweight clause in his contract...


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

urwhatueati8god said:


> Fair enough if he's only being considered for the expiring contract.


The expiring contract but his "Bird Rights" as well. Despite his injuries, he's still one of the best players in the game when healthy and avoids having to sign 2 players of his caliber; just one. Now, health has been a big "if" for McGrady the past couple of seasons but what is the real gamble for us in our current predicament? We don't have him, we're still a better team; if we do have him, he's a franchise player for us. 



urwhatueati8god said:


> The differences between Villanueva and Lee were nearly immeasurable when their numbers are broken down side by side over the course of last year. Lee is a better at rebounding and better put-back guy, but Villanueva is a better defender, ball handler, passer, and shooter. I really don't see how either one is going to command that much more salary than the other. Their P.E.R.'s are nearly identical (19.0 for Lee, 18.6 for Villanueva) and being that P.E.R. doesn't really measure defensive merits, at least some G.M.'s are going to view Villanueva as the better prospect.
> 
> I agree on the Sessions point, but I don't think he's worth taking back Villanueva for.


Maybe I'm not nearly as smart as I think I am. I was working under the notion that most people probably would undervalue Villanueva since he doesn't do anything particularly well. I conversely thought that people would overvalue Lee (which has become common) for the reason that he does do something well (rebound and score in double digures). I still would hold out some hope that a deal like this would occur considering that David Lee is more of a Scott Skiles/John Hammond type of player: physical, a hustler, and team-oriented. If it did happen, such a deal would be a freaking steal in our favor because of what we do and how well the players we are bringing in fit.

P.S., why would you not want Villanueva recognizing that he does so many things better than David Lee?





urwhatueati8god said:


> That was then. This is now. Joe Dumars is interested in Vince Carter and is willing supposedly willing to move Tayshaun Prince and Kwame Brown for Carter in a move that would prove that Dumars is a completely overrated general manager.


The thing is that there has been nothing that has happened to indicate a change in the Nets and what they want to do. The objective since last season has been to shed as many contracts as possible and acquire young talent. The team has very much stuck to this plan and haven't once suggested otherwise.

And yes, Joe Dumars has been screwing up as of late; why offer Hamilton a contract extension if you were going to move Chauncey Billups? Why bring in Allen Iverson if your not going to allow him to be Allen Iverson? I'll have to see what he intends to do with the Pistons but they have not gotten off to a good start rebuilding.




urwhatueati8god said:


> The main reason that they won't move Nash is because Phoenix management is too afraid that moving him would result in a less exciting style of play which would result in less of a fan base and less revenue. Amare Stoudemire was rumored to be involved in the trades to the bulls for their hot garbage and the Warriors for their hot garbage. Both are blatant signs of rebuilding and Steve Kerr's job is likely in jeopardy.


Phoenix basketball is much more than Steve Nash and has preceeded his arrival with the team. Although it would be difficult to envision a Suns team without a primer PG in the league, they'll survive; we played something similar to Suns basketball with a career backup player. If teams were adversly affected financially from shedding contracts, no team would ever rebuild. I honestly believe that what they are doing is not rebuilding so much as it is retooling hence the trade for Jason Richardson.



urwhatueati8god said:


> Eddy Curry is not in usable shape. He was winded after a mere five minutes of practice time. While the Pacers will move Tinsley for next to nothing, Curry is not next to nothing, he is nothing. The guy has no potential tag left on him anymore. He's just garbage. In order for the Knicks to move him, they will have to give up some other viable cog. That's just the blatant reality of it. I could see it happening if the Knicks include Wilson Chandler for Brandon Rush and Travis Diener, but I still question whether or not Dallas would make this move as well.


Solid point about Curry. The only other team I could see remotely interested in Curry is the Bobcats. Needless to say, it is going to be hard to move him over the offseason.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Kiyaman said:


> Wow Twinkie u n Ur got a good conversation going....
> 
> If the Knicks had a BIGMAN training coach like Patrick Ewing Sr. than they could go after Marcin Gortat as their center.
> My bad....Ewing is Marcin Gortat training-coach....another decent playoff game like Gortat had vs Philly, and the Orlando Magic will resign both Gortat & Ewing long term (for the health of Dwight Howard).


As much as Ewing might have had an influence in improving Gortat's game, Gortat is the one who has to go out there and play those games. Losing Ewing does not all of a sudden mean that Gortat is going to forget everything he may or may have not learned, so I fail to see why we shouldn't sign him. I also doubt he'll want to return to the Magic given what he has had to say about Stan Van Gundy. I'm paraphrasing here but confirmed what Shaq said about Van Gundy and even insulted the manner Van Gundy utilized him, suggesting that he deserved more playing time and a bigger role in the offense. He'd be wasting his talent playing behind Howard for the next 14 seasons, Dwight will be in the league. The Knicks would give him the perfect opportunity to demonstrate how far he has come as a player and do what he does best....defense. 



Kiyaman said:


> If Houston vs the Lakers become an exciting 6 to 7 game series look for Artest to be resigned and Tracy Mcgrady contract traded this offseason (for that missing piece....a double-double PF to put between Yao & Artest).


The Rockets are already one of the better rebounding teams in the league no? They also already have several "double-double PF" types in Chuck Hayes, Luis Scola and Carl Landry. The Rockets would be better served exchanging McGrady and one of there PF's for Richard Hamilton and Kwame Brown. Hamilton has been an ironman in the league, plays defense and shoots the ball particularly well; that's all they need at there 2 guard especially one with a championship pedigree. Kwame Brown provides defense at the 5 spot, which they'll need post-Mutombo.



Kiyaman said:


> Lee's value and salary will be higher than Villaneuva for a couple of reasons....Lee is a natural rebounding PF whom talents been improving each season in the NBA....Villanueva has improved his talents since bein a rookie but....he is a strong-solid SF struggling to be a Boozer.


Again, your stuck in the 90's when a PF had to be a big burly bruiser in the mold of Carlos Boozer. There is no significant difference in body type of Charlie and KG, Lamar Odom, Pau Gasol, Chris Bosh, etc and all of them are the top tier PF's in the league. In our particular system, Charlie might mean much more to us because of his all-around game than would a David Lee, especially with a Marcin Gortat on board.



Kiyaman said:


> Vince Carter has become the NBA hardest-puzzle to find the pieces too....
> Carter will whind-up apart of a sign and trade in 2009 or 2010.
> 
> Dumars 2009-Plan or 2010-Plan may backfire on him for not letting Chauncy Billups retire as a Piston.


I would find it hard to imagine any team assuming Carter's contract in exchange for a Joe Johnson, Dirk Nowitikzi, LeBron or Wade type player that will be available in 2010. When you lose any of the aforementioned players, a guy like Carter on the downside of his career can not change your fortunes especially at his pricetag.

And I do agree about Dumars.



Kiyaman said:


> The Spurs are rebuilding for the 2010-11 Championship Ring....so they will be shopping for alot of young-players this offseason.
> And Ramon Session or Harris will be overjoyed gettin an offer-sheet from Spurs.


Devin Harris has a long term contract with the Nets and I highly doubt they'll trade him just to make the Spurs better. I also fail to see the purpose of acquiring Sessions or Harris when the Spurs have a 27 year old PG (Tony Parker) that has been good enough to carry the team lately. Sessions and Harris are no longer backups in this league.

I also think that the Spurs will have some difficult rebuilding. They have a solid core with Parker, Ginobli and Duncan but, beyond Drew Gooden, have no sort of tangible assets that teams would be interested in trading for. They also have so much money invested in there core players that they can not get beneath the cap and are far to good to get a draft pick that will change there fortunes signficiantly. 



Kiyaman said:


> *I'm giving Eddie Curry another chance....*under the right team "Program" Curry would flourish in the next 4 to 5 years.
> *Having talent is good, but having a coach to show u how to use that talent is GREAT.*
> 
> This Knick organization refuse to cater to Curry needs which was getting a veteran-center coach to train him as a center.
> ...


That program likely will not be with the Knicks who are an uptempo team. Trade him immediately for any financial flexibility youu can get. We have already invested far to much in him: (1) with draft picks (two lottery), (2) money for assistant coaches like Mark Aguirre and George Glymph to work on his post game, (3) and our opportunities to invest those assets into other players that would have been more useful to us. Just deal the guy and start building for the future.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Actually, Twinkie*

What Gortat really had to say about VanGundy was that he panicked on the bench all the time. Basically intimated that he was over his head. I agree with you, I think he's gone (Gortat). He is a little intriguing to me. I haven't seen him much to have a hard opinion but he is aggressive and has great numbers.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Actually, Twinkie*



alphaorange said:


> What Gortat really had to say about VanGundy was that he panicked on the bench all the time. Basically intimated that he was over his head. I agree with you, I think he's gone (Gortat). He is a little intriguing to me. I haven't seen him much to have a hard opinion but he is aggressive and has great numbers.


I can't seem to track down the Polish paper but this Orlando Sentinel article insinuates Gortat's displeasure with the way he was being used....in fact that is exactly what it says: "Gortat also said he wasn't getting any plays called for him."

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/basketball/magic/orl-sportsmnotes22042209apr22,0,4523361.story


This of course was a sugar-coated version of what I recall being reported, as Gortat went much further in elaborating his displeasure. If this really is the case, I hope he jump ships and signs with the Knicks.


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

1. Sign and trades can only be a 1 for 1 trade. So it would be Nate Robinson for one player and David Lee for annother player, you wouldnt be able to receive 3 in return. Also, since New York is over thee cap the trades would have to be within 110%, so basically you are paying Charlie V, and Sessions the same contracts that you would pay David Lee and Nate Robinson, why would Milwaukee ever do this? Why would New York do this? Walsh seems infatuated with the 2010 plan and I think he is content on starting completely fresh. He will not over pay for 2 players to long term contracts unless they are the "right" players. Charlie V might be one of those players, but why would you overpay Sessions to be a backup. 

2. You are in a dream world if you think Phoenix would just sell their lottery pick, I know they have a history of selling picks, but the situations are completely different, They were thought to be title contenders and they thought they couldnt afford to develop any young players and Sarver wanted to save money, Now they are in re-building mode and they need to stockpile on young players. 

3. D'antoni barely plays an 8 man rotation, why should they get a rotation of 13 deep. Imagine how much players would be complaining about pplaying time, it would just create more drama. And also, if the knicks are rebuilding why stunt the development of them by bringing in insignificant veterans that will steal playing time from them?

4. Why would you trade for Tracy Mcgrady when he is coming off a major knee surgery and always seems to have back issues? He is clearly a shell of his former self and I thought bringing in washed up veterans was the opposite of what New York was trying to do.

5. Dallas would never ever make a trade like that, If anything it would be Tinsley for Curry but then agaain whats the point.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Believe you're wrong on #1*

Once a player is signed he can be traded under the standard rules regarding trades. A team has to wait a required amount of time before trading him, or he can be traded sooner if the player consents.This has been rehashed on one of the other sites ad nauseum. There is a post directly from the CBA on one of them.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

jayisthebest88 said:


> 1. Sign and trades can only be a 1 for 1 trade. So it would be Nate Robinson for one player and David Lee for annother player, you wouldnt be able to receive 3 in return. Also, since New York is over thee cap the trades would have to be within 110%, so basically you are paying Charlie V, and Sessions the same contracts that you would pay David Lee and Nate Robinson, why would Milwaukee ever do this? Why would New York do this? Walsh seems infatuated with the 2010 plan and I think he is content on starting completely fresh. He will not over pay for 2 players to long term contracts unless they are the "right" players. Charlie V might be one of those players, but why would you overpay Sessions to be a backup.


Refer to alpha's post for some clarification on your part. 



jayisthebest88 said:


> 2. You are in a dream world if you think Phoenix would just sell their lottery pick, I know they have a history of selling picks, but the situations are completely different, They were thought to be title contenders and they thought they couldnt afford to develop any young players and Sarver wanted to save money, Now they are in re-building mode and they need to stockpile on young players.


So with a healthy Amare Stoudamire, you don't think they are the same title contenders that they once were? Have you seen the number of games they won with him in the lineup and Alvin Gentry allowing them to get out and play ball? They are in a very similar situation then as they are now, which would suggest to me that they would be willing to move that pick. Like I said, your not going to look to keep a 30 year old PG and move a 25 year old all-star PF because your rebuilding.



jayisthebest88 said:


> 3. D'antoni barely plays an 8 man rotation, why should they get a rotation of 13 deep. Imagine how much players would be complaining about pplaying time, it would just create more drama. And also, if the knicks are rebuilding why stunt the development of them by bringing in insignificant veterans that will steal playing time from them?


Why not get a rotation of 13 deep? It gives you more options to include in that 8 man rotation and players that can't hack it could be packaged in subsequent trades that would help improve the quality of players able to play in the rotation.

Did you just call Tracy McGrady insignificant? Did you also noticed that our team actually would actually add a 2nd lottery pick from these deals? There would be plenty of time left to go around between them.



jayisthebest88 said:


> 4. Why would you trade for Tracy Mcgrady when he is coming off a major knee surgery and always seems to have back issues? He is clearly a shell of his former self and I thought bringing in washed up veterans was the opposite of what New York was trying to do.


Because he has a $20 million contract that is expiring. Because he is an all-star when healthy and might be of service to the team should he prove to be healthy in the future.



jayisthebest88 said:


> 5. Dallas would never ever make a trade like that, If anything it would be Tinsley for Curry but then agaain whats the point.


Jason Kidd is 35 years old and Jason Terry/Jose Barra has been better utilized as a gunner. They need a legitimate backup and Tinlsey would provide that for them and a player capable of starting when need be.


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> Refer to alpha's post for some clarification on your part. .


Yeah it seems as though more then one player can be involved in a sign and trade, I have no idea why I thought it could only be a 1 for 1 trade. 





TwinkieFoot said:


> So with a healthy Amare Stoudamire, you don't think they are the same title contenders that they once were? Have you seen the number of games they won with him in the lineup and Alvin Gentry allowing them to get out and play ball? They are in a very similar situation then as they are now, which would suggest to me that they would be willing to move that pick. Like I said, your not going to look to keep a 30 year old PG and move a 25 year old all-star PF because your rebuilding. .


It's true that the Phoenix Suns sold draft picks in the past, but this is when Mike D'antoni was still coach, The Suns were still Championship contenders, and they didn't have hindsight to realize their mistakes. I'm sure after seeing how Luol Deng, Rajon Rondo, Nate Robinson and Rudy Fernandez have panned out, they are kicking themselves for being so narrow minded. One reason they thought the picks were expendable is because of D'antoni's 8 man rotation, the illogical assumption that they had no room to develop young players, and the owner being cheap and not wanting to be in luxury tax territory. For the past 2 years they have kept all their picks so I see no reason why they would sell their pick this year especially when it's a lottery pick. 

It's true that the Phoenix Suns can have alot of success with their run and gun system with their current players, but they pretty much lost their chance at winning a title when they traded away Marion who was the X factor in their system. When Steve Kerr took over he had the intentions of turning the team into a half court team and as a result traded away alot of players that were perfect for the system such as Diaw, Bell, Marion. Since the half court system failed miserably he reluctantly turned back to run and gun but you can see that the damage has been done, and although they are still talented they are no longer talented enough to win an NBA title. Steve Kerr knows this, It's not going to be a full blown re-building process, but maybe one like the detroit pistons are goign through right now. 



TwinkieFoot said:


> Why not get a rotation of 13 deep? It gives you more options to include in that 8 man rotation and players that can't hack it could be packaged in subsequent trades that would help improve the quality of players able to play in the rotation..


This is true, but unless your team is going to be a contender, why even bother? Why make all these trades to be barely be an 8th seed and get a lower draft pick and get swept in the first round, when the team will completely different in 2010 anyways. Wouldn't you rather have a top 5 lottery pick and have a losing season and be in a better position for the year after. I know you're thinking about the present, but sometimes you have to sacrifice a season or two in order to make your team better for the future.



TwinkieFoot said:


> Did you just call Tracy McGrady insignificant? Did you also noticed that our team actually would actually add a 2nd lottery pick from these deals? There would be plenty of time left to go around between them..


Tracy Mcgrady is a heck of a ball player when he is healthy, but yeah he is insignificant when you are thinking in terms of the knicks ultimate goal, to be a title contender again. Just because you have T-mac as a rental player for one season and he MIGHT lead the knicks to an 8th seed, but now you are just slowing the Knicks rebulding pprocess even more by givinng them a lower draft pick and I'm not really taking any of your proposed deals seriously since none of them are really that realistic. 



TwinkieFoot said:


> Because he has a $20 million contract that is expiring. Because he is an all-star when healthy and might be of service to the team should he prove to be healthy in the future..


Well part of your plan of getting T-mac is to first make a blockbuster trade for Carter and then immediately shipping him with Q-rich for him, which I'm pretty sure is directly against the rules of the CBA. Once a player is traded to a team, they must wait a certain number of days (60 days?)before being allowed to trade him again, but one exception is he can be traded right away to anotehr team if it is a 1 for 1 trade. When T-mac is an unrestricted FA in 2010 then sure bring him in to be a second option besides the major FA they are gunning for(Lebron,Wade,Bosh,etcetc.? ) but theres no need to bring him in a year earlier. 





TwinkieFoot said:


> Jason Kidd is 35 years old and Jason Terry/Jose Barra has been better utilized as a gunner. They need a legitimate backup and Tinlsey would provide that for them and a player capable of starting when need be.


Im sure The Mavericks want to bring in a 7 million dollar a year player who hasn't played in over a year to be a backup pg. This trade just doesn't make sense for the Mavs from a financial stand point because no one would ever ever trade for a 7 million dollar backup. Tinsley is definitley a talented player but with all his baggage and his contract in his current situation I dont see any teams making a play for him, unless! it is for another player who is useless ala Eddy Curry. But other then Eddy Curry I dont see any other player in the league he can be traded for.




The only suggestion of your that is realistic is signing Gortat to a contract...


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

jayisthebest88 said:


> Yeah it seems as though more then one player can be involved in a sign and trade, I have no idea why I thought it could only be a 1 for 1 trade.






jayisthebest88 said:


> It's true that the Phoenix Suns sold draft picks in the past, but this is when Mike D'antoni was still coach, The Suns were still Championship contenders, and they didn't have hindsight to realize their mistakes. I'm sure after seeing how Luol Deng, Rajon Rondo, Nate Robinson and Rudy Fernandez have panned out, they are kicking themselves for being so narrow minded. One reason they thought the picks were expendable is because of D'antoni's 8 man rotation, the illogical assumption that they had no room to develop young players, and the owner being cheap and not wanting to be in luxury tax territory. For the past 2 years they have kept all their picks so I see no reason why they would sell their pick this year especially when it's a lottery pick.


The Suns were still considered title contenders heading into this season. The decision to bring in Terry Porter was to improve the team and not to sit there as a place holder while they find an appropriate sucessor. If this was not the case, why was Porter removed as head coach because of the Suns playing 8th seeded ball? Why was everyone so surprised by their slow start if they were not title contenders? Why would you bring in a guy like Jason Richardson (at his price tag), if a championship was not what you were gunning for? Injuries to Amare and Barbosa and Terry Porter's arrogance derailed their season. If they bring that same roster back with Alvin Gentry at the healm, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be considered contenders.



jayisthebest88 said:


> It's true that the Phoenix Suns can have alot of success with their run and gun system with their current players, but they pretty much lost their chance at winning a title when they traded away Marion who was the X factor in their system. When Steve Kerr took over he had the intentions of turning the team into a half court team and as a result traded away alot of players that were perfect for the system such as Diaw, Bell, Marion. Since the half court system failed miserably he reluctantly turned back to run and gun but you can see that the damage has been done, and although they are still talented they are no longer talented enough to win an NBA title. Steve Kerr knows this, It's not going to be a full blown re-building process, but maybe one like the detroit pistons are goign through right now.


You mean the same Shawn Marion who was bounced by the Heat for mediocre play and didn't fair much better with the Toronto Raptors who seem all too willing to let him go via FA for cost concerns? That Shawn Marion? I'd take Shaq, with the way he has been playing, over Marion in a heartbeat. And clearly you don't understand that trading Bell and Diaw was a move to upgrade the team and not to change philosophies. Jason Richardson (the guy who they got in return) has played nothing but uptempo ball his career with the Warriors and was very effective in it. Face it, the Suns are not rebuilding and may be retooling if anything. That pick should be in play like it has been in the past.



jayisthebest88 said:


> This is true, but unless your team is going to be a contender, why even bother? Why make all these trades to be barely be an 8th seed and get a lower draft pick and get swept in the first round, when the team will completely different in 2010 anyways. Wouldn't you rather have a top 5 lottery pick and have a losing season and be in a better position for the year after. I know you're thinking about the present, but sometimes you have to sacrifice a season or two in order to make your team better for the future.


The objective isn't the main objective of those moves. The main objectives are to: (1) rid ourselves of contracts that extend beyond 2010 to create greater cap flexibility, (2)bring in more young talent, (3)bring in players that give us more flexibility in trades. To this extent, all those objectives are accomplished. I still think this team would be pretty competitive in the East though, which I would prefer. *We could suck all we want for the upcoming season but it will not pay off in a lottery pick since we traded it to Utah via the Marbury trade way back when. *




jayisthebest88 said:


> Tracy Mcgrady is a heck of a ball player when he is healthy, but yeah he is insignificant when you are thinking in terms of the knicks ultimate goal, to be a title contender again. Just because you have T-mac as a rental player for one season and he MIGHT lead the knicks to an 8th seed, but now you are just slowing the Knicks rebulding pprocess even more by givinng them a lower draft pick and I'm not really taking any of your proposed deals seriously since none of them are really that realistic.


Dude, you don't think Tracy McGrady would be a big component of a title contender? He is what had people thinking the Rockets might be better than the Lakers this season until he had those injuries. Best part of this deal is that we might be able to get 2 other all-star caliber players because of McGrady's contract. Since it expires in 2010, we'll have the $20 million extra cap space it'll create (in addition to the $10 million more we'd already have) to use on FA's. Should a 2nd free agent not materialize, we could always keep McGrady and still have a two-headed monster.





jayisthebest88 said:


> Well part of your plan of getting T-mac is to first make a blockbuster trade for Carter and then immediately shipping him with Q-rich for him, which I'm pretty sure is directly against the rules of the CBA. Once a player is traded to a team, they must wait a certain number of days (60 days?)before being allowed to trade him again, but one exception is he can be traded right away to anotehr team if it is a 1 for 1 trade. When T-mac is an unrestricted FA in 2010 then sure bring him in to be a second option besides the major FA they are gunning for(Lebron,Wade,Bosh,etcetc.? ) but theres no need to bring him in a year earlier.


You can trade a player that you have just recieved within 48 hours of the original trade. FACT. If we would be able to craft a deal that fast, we'd be well within the right to execute it. After that deadline, we have to deal with 120 day or so waiting period.






jayisthebest88 said:


> Im sure The Mavericks want to bring in a 7 million dollar a year player who hasn't played in over a year to be a backup pg. This trade just doesn't make sense for the Mavs from a financial stand point because no one would ever ever trade for a 7 million dollar backup. Tinsley is definitley a talented player but with all his baggage and his contract in his current situation I dont see any teams making a play for him, unless! it is for another player who is useless ala Eddy Curry. But other then Eddy Curry I dont see any other player in the league he can be traded for.


Dude, take a look at the Mavs roster over the past several years and then get back to me. They were paying Desagna Diop nearly $6 to play limited minutes off the bench. They ARE paying Dampier to do little more than what Diop was doing, $10 million a year as a starter. They ARE paying Jason Terry $9 million to come off the bench. They ARE paying $7 million to Jerry Stackhouse to not play him. *By my count, that was 3 players being paid in the range of $7 million a year, to come off the bench.* In spite of all that Mark Cuban has publicly stated he will make any trade to improve his team, regardless of the financial implications it brings. That has been his M.O. since he's been an owner, having traded for Antawn Jamison to bring off the bench at $12 million a year. Money is not a cost with him. 

They make this trade because Tinsley is talented. Baggage is never a concern because if it was, they would have moved Jerry Stackhouse and Josh Howard a long time ago; never would have traded for Jason Kidd who has been considered a coach killer around the league, constantly was in the media for issues he had with his wife (who has since divorced) and a half-asser when he doesn't get his way. 








jayisthebest88 said:


> The only suggestion of your that is realistic is signing Gortat to a contract...


I wish I could at least say that little for your arguments thus far.


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> The Suns were still considered title contenders heading into this season. The decision to bring in Terry Porter was to improve the team and not to sit there as a place holder while they find an appropriate sucessor. If this was not the case, why was Porter removed as head coach because of the Suns playing 8th seeded ball? Why was everyone so surprised by their slow start if they were not title contenders? Why would you bring in a guy like Jason Richardson (at his price tag), if a championship was not what you were gunning for? Injuries to Amare and Barbosa and Terry Porter's arrogance derailed their season. If they bring that same roster back with Alvin Gentry at the healm, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be considered contenders.


They obivously thought they were contrnders heading into THIS season, because they thought they could succesfully intergrate their team into a half court team. However, they FAILED in this reagrde and as a result traded away much of their core that helped them succeed in a fast tempo system and now they are in position where they have peices that do not quite fit. By hiring gentry they have returned to the fast break offence, but this wasnt by choice, but rather it was because that was all they could do to try to save their season.I can't belive that you cant comprehend the fact that the Suns are worse off then they were with marion. They CAN make the playoffs easily with their current roster but it is clear they are no longer a CHAMPIONSHIP contender. Shaq was brought in to allow the team to be a half court team, but now that they know they cant with their current players, he is not as useful to them as Marion would be. It wasn't Terry Porters fault that they played poorly, it was Steve Kerr's fault for trying to fix something that wasn't broken. I agree that if they played a fast paced offence from the start of the season they would have made the playoffs, but they would never have made the Bell and Diaw trade, OR the Shaq-Marion trade from last year if they knew they were going to play a fast paced offense. Why are you talking about what they were considered coming last season, and now what they are NOW? right now they are NOT considered a title contender. 





TwinkieFoot said:


> You mean the same Shawn Marion who was bounced by the Heat for mediocre play and didn't fair much better with the Toronto Raptors who seem all too willing to let him go via FA for cost concerns? That Shawn Marion? I'd take Shaq, with the way he has been playing, over Marion in a heartbeat. And clearly you don't understand that trading Bell and Diaw was a move to upgrade the team and not to change philosophies. Jason Richardson (the guy who they got in return) has played nothing but uptempo ball his career with the Warriors and was very effective in it. Face it, the Suns are not rebuilding and may be retooling if anything. That pick should be in play like it has been in the past.


It's irrelevent how he has played for the Miami Heat or The Toronto Raptors, besides he has had some injury issues. Everyone knows that Marion was an all star player with the Suns and if he had stayed its not guarantee he would have been injured, with the Suns he was considered as one of the elite forwards in the league. Raja Bell and Diaw were struggling in the half court offence and didntt fit in with Terry Porters system. They were already in the process of changing philsophies when they had porter as the coach and that trade was a result of that change in philosophy! At the time it seemed like an upgrade because Bell and Diaw were struggling in Porters offence but if they knew they were going to have gentry as their coach half way in the season then they would not have amde the trade! J-rich playing well in a fast paced offence is only a coincidence! At the time they were making the trades, they had the mindset of retooling, but now that the expriment has failed and they are back in their old offence, but we are talking about right NOW! they are NOT title contenders right now, and they wont sell their draft pick just like that!






TwinkieFoot said:


> The objective isn't the main objective of those moves. The main objectives are to: (1) rid ourselves of contracts that extend beyond 2010 to create greater cap flexibility, (2)bring in more young talent, (3)bring in players that give us more flexibility in trades. To this extent, all those objectives are accomplished. I still think this team would be pretty competitive in the East though, which I would prefer. *We could suck all we want for the upcoming season but it will not pay off in a lottery pick since we traded it to Utah via the Marbury trade way back when. *


The objective of creating cap space for the 2010 offseason has already been met! your moves create more salary, and then your "salary saving" moves are just ridding salaries that you have added through your suggestions.

Clearly New Yorks goals are to bring in players through Free Agency and NOT through trades. If you cant see this then I wont even bother arguing with you. New York doesn't want to make any trades other then to clear more room for 2010! Their goal this season will be to trade away Eddy Curry and Jared Jefferies, Heck they probably will only re-sign one of David Lee and Nate Robinson because they have 2010 in mind and dont want to add any salaries! 

I wrongly assumed that the pick they owed to Utah had some kind of lottery protection on it, but it turns out it doesn't so that was my bad, but if they did have that pick it would be right move to tank and get the highest possible pick possible. I guess it wont matter if they are competitive or not, but it will be the roster that they have now, Theere wont be any moves this season! 




TwinkieFoot said:


> Dude, you don't think Tracy McGrady would be a big component of a title contender? He is what had people thinking the Rockets might be better than the Lakers this season until he had those injuries. Best part of this deal is that we might be able to get 2 other all-star caliber players because of McGrady's contract. Since it expires in 2010, we'll have the $20 million extra cap space it'll create (in addition to the $10 million more we'd already have) to use on FA's. Should a 2nd free agent not materialize, we could always keep McGrady and still have a two-headed monster.


Without any of your suggested moves the Knicks will already have more then 25 million of cap space for the 2010 off season. By adding T-mac you're creating cap space but thats only because you're other trades created salaries that needed to be cleared in the first place! T-mac will be an UFA in 2010, if the knicks want him they can still sign him even if they dont have his bird rights! NO team will offer him a contract over 10 million or over 3 years, not with all his injury troubles and decline in skills. You seem to think he is the same T-mac as 3 years ago, WAKE UP! he is a shell of his former self, I still think hes a heck of a player, but if the knicks bring him in he will come in as a very good role player not as an all star caliber player. I would really re-check your salary numbers, because they would NOT have 30 million of cap space with all your moves. All your moves are illogical when you think in terms of NewYorks plan, other teams intentions, and salary cap figures.






TwinkieFoot said:


> You can trade a player that you have just recieved within 48 hours of the original trade. FACT. If we would be able to craft a deal that fast, we'd be well within the right to execute it. After that deadline, we have to deal with 120 day or so waiting period.


You can trade the player immediately as long as he is not being traded in combination with other players. You have to wait a minimum of 2 months before being able to trade him again in combination with other players. So what you are saying is not FACT. 

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q85




TwinkieFoot said:


> Dude, take a look at the Mavs roster over the past several years and then get back to me. They were paying Desagna Diop nearly $6 to play limited minutes off the bench. They ARE paying Dampier to do little more than what Diop was doing, $10 million a year as a starter. They ARE paying Jason Terry $9 million to come off the bench. They ARE paying $7 million to Jerry Stackhouse to not play him. *By my count, that was 3 players being paid in the range of $7 million a year, to come off the bench.* In spite of all that Mark Cuban has publicly stated he will make any trade to improve his team, regardless of the financial implications it brings. That has been his M.O. since he's been an owner, having traded for Antawn Jamison to bring off the bench at $12 million a year. Money is not a cost with him.


All these players at the time they signed their contracts were worth taking on in Cubans eyes. Dampier was coming off a career season and the Mavs thought he was the missing peice of the puzzle. Jason Terry has beeen playing as their 6th man but playing starters minutes while putting up all star numbers on that contract. Jerry Stackhouse at the time was their 6th man and was very effective.The Diop Signing was a mistake from the get go but big men are generally always overpaid and it was thought he would be a platoon starter with Dampier. It's not a money issue, clearly they are not scared to spend money, but the mavs are not as wreckless with money as they once were, but looking at the mavs roster, they alerady have their pg's and I really do not think they will want to bring in a big contract liks Tinsleys to play less than 20 mins a game. And also, in your trade the Mavs are also taking on Jared Jefferies. Thats 2 very bad contracts and most likely Jeffefies will not contribute anything. You're trying to tell me that this trade is realistic? 



TwinkieFoot said:


> They make this trade because Tinsley is talented. Baggage is never a concern because if it was, they would have moved Jerry Stackhouse and Josh Howard a long time ago; never would have traded for Jason Kidd who has been considered a coach killer around the league, constantly was in the media for issues he had with his wife (who has since divorced) and a half-asser when he doesn't get his way.


Baggage may not be a concern, but it just adds on to everything else that will prevent a team for trading for his contract

Reasons not to acquire Tinsley: 

1. Has not played in over a year
2. Is a constant injury risk, one of the most injured players in the league
3. Huge contract paying 7 million dollars for 2 more years 
4. Disruption in the locker room; was banished from the pacers for reasons unknown.


LOL, and Jason Kidd has been a premier point guard for over a decade and last time I checked he was always a leader of his team and a winner, and was never banned from his own team.




TwinkieFoot said:


> I wish I could at least say that little for your arguments thus far.


Your plan involves Phoenix giving away a lottery draft pick for nothing, complicated sign and trades involving 4 RFA, (Villanueva, Sessions, Lee, Robinson) You said this is to avoid paying David Lee 10 mill. a sseason and to "preserve" capsapce but u ignore the fact that we would instead be paying Charlie V that 10 mill per year. Charlie Bell is making around 4 mill a year so you're assuming that Ramon Sessions would agree to a contract worth around 2-3 mill. a year and he will prbably be looking for the full MLE or more. And Yes Charlie V will get a contract that is equal to or greater then David Lee's. You have just added 3 contracts that extends past 2010, you said to sign gortat to a MLE deal, tthats another contract past 2010, Your Vince Carter trade depends on if Phoenix will sell their lottery pick for cash, and if New Jersey is willing to unload carter for a salary dump(which NEW Jersey has already said they wont do) you assume that NJ will swap their higher pick for Phoenix's lower pick(the one New York got for free)just because NJ is desperate to trade down for no reason at all, You have just added a max contract for 2010 which is directly against your stated goal of having more space for 2010. Then you assume that the Mavericks will trade for Jamaal Tinsley's and Jared Jefferies massive contracts while giving up their flexibility to make other moves , all for a backup pg who will play less then 20 mins a game and a guy(jefferies) that will rot on their bench for 3 years. So the knicks get to trade thir 2 worst contracts for an expiring contract and 2 role players without having to give up any picks or prospects and the Mavs take them on and it is somehow helping them. You then "create" cap space by trading away VC and Q-rich for T-mac even though Q-rich's contract is expiring in 2010 too , even though the players u traded away (Harrington and Hughes) were already expiring in 2010 anyways and the only reason you need to make cap space now is because you created it in the first place by acquiring carter who you have on intentiion of keeping. And to add to that, trading VC along with Q-rich right after you traded fro VC is a direct violation of the CBA. Basically you made 2 big blockbuster trades to do the same thing if you had done nothing at all, and all it did was clear salaries that you created in the first place. 


In your "realistic" scenario, every team all of a sudden wants to help the knicks and completely avoids their own needs and for some reason the Knicks are trying their best to create cap space in 2010 that they already have by making a series of blockbusters to end up with the same cap room they already have but instead of commiting to resigning David Lee and Nate Robinson(because according to you, this will help them save caproom in 2010) they will instead pay this money to Charlie Villanueva and Ramon Sessions(who magicaly agrees to sign for less then his market value cause he just loves NY so much) and Charlie Bell)but somehow your suggestion is preserving even more money for 2010....


Yeah you're suggestions are really realistic and logical...


----------



## urwhatueati8god (May 27, 2003)

In an interesting bit of E.S.P....



> Tracy McGrady, with his microfractured knee and $22.5 million salary that comes off the books next July, could be a player the Knicks will pursue this off-season.
> 
> Frank Isola writes that the Knicks could swap the expiring contracts of Larry Hughes and Cuttino Mobley to bring in the big name with All-Star pedigree who could improve their shot at the playoffs. That would perhaps make the club more attractive to LeBron James.
> 
> There is no guarantee that McGrady will be ready for the start of next season.



Link


----------



## Zuca (Dec 4, 2003)

I think it's more likely that Q Rich goes to Houston instead of Hughes.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

jayisthebest88 said:


> They obivously thought they were contrnders heading into THIS season, because they thought they could succesfully intergrate their team into a half court team. However, they FAILED in this reagrde and as a result traded away much of their core that helped them succeed in a fast tempo system and now they are in position where they have peices that do not quite fit. By hiring gentry they have returned to the fast break offence, but this wasnt by choice, but rather it was because that was all they could do to try to save their season.I can't belive that you cant comprehend the fact that the Suns are worse off then they were with marion. They CAN make the playoffs easily with their current roster but it is clear they are no longer a CHAMPIONSHIP contender. Shaq was brought in to allow the team to be a half court team, but now that they know they cant with their current players, he is not as useful to them as Marion would be. It wasn't Terry Porters fault that they played poorly, it was Steve Kerr's fault for trying to fix something that wasn't broken. I agree that if they played a fast paced offence from the start of the season they would have made the playoffs, but they would never have made the Bell and Diaw trade, OR the Shaq-Marion trade from last year if they knew they were going to play a fast paced offense. Why are you talking about what they were considered coming last season, and now what they are NOW? right now they are NOT considered a title contender.


The Suns only thought they were a contender heading into the season? If that was the case, why would they sacrifice inevitably financial relief from Raja Bell's contract to acquire Jason Richardson's midseason, which is longer? Beyond that, Jason Richardson is clearly an uptempo player with his athleticism and how much better he played with the Warriors than the Suns. Yes, the Suns did acquire Shaq who doesn't fit that system but no matter how fast you are, you'll still be operating in a half-court game a majority of the time. They needed a legitimate back to the basket player to take advantage of these opportunities ala the Showtime Lakers who were the only uptempo team to win a championship (thanks in large part to Kareem Abdul-Jabber). With everyone healthy, I don't see why they wouldn't be a title contender.





jayisthebest88 said:


> It's irrelevent how he has played for the Miami Heat or The Toronto Raptors, besides he has had some injury issues. Everyone knows that Marion was an all star player with the Suns and if he had stayed its not guarantee he would have been injured, with the Suns he was considered as one of the elite forwards in the league. Raja Bell and Diaw were struggling in the half court offence and didntt fit in with Terry Porters system. They were already in the process of changing philsophies when they had porter as the coach and that trade was a result of that change in philosophy! At the time it seemed like an upgrade because Bell and Diaw were struggling in Porters offence but if they knew they were going to have gentry as their coach half way in the season then they would not have amde the trade! J-rich playing well in a fast paced offence is only a coincidence! At the time they were making the trades, they had the mindset of retooling, but now that the expriment has failed and they are back in their old offence, but we are talking about right NOW! they are NOT title contenders right now, and they wont sell their draft pick just like that!


So your telling me how well a player plays is irrelevant when forming an opinion about how good he is at present? That's sound thinking. Once again with this philosophy nonsense, you don't bring in a Jason Richardson who does exactly what your team does if your changing the culture of your team. That's no coincidence either because he's played several seasons with the Warriors who ALWAYS were an uptempo franchise.






jayisthebest88 said:


> The objective of creating cap space for the 2010 offseason has already been met! your moves create more salary, and then your "salary saving" moves are just ridding salaries that you have added through your suggestions.


Since when have Jared Jefferies and Eddy Curry's contracts been "salary saving" salaries for 2010....WHEN THEY BOTH EXCEED 2010? Notice how they are not on the roster and only Marko Jaric is brought back in their place?



jayisthebest88 said:


> Clearly New Yorks goals are to bring in players through Free Agency and NOT through trades. If you cant see this then I wont even bother arguing with you. New York doesn't want to make any trades other then to clear more room for 2010! Their goal this season will be to trade away Eddy Curry and Jared Jefferies, Heck they probably will only re-sign one of David Lee and Nate Robinson because they have 2010 in mind and dont want to add any salaries!


The best way to build a team isn't through signing players but by being able to make trades, solid draft picks AND signing players. My trades utilize each of these 3 options. If you can't see this then I won't even bother arguing with YOU.



jayisthebest88 said:


> I wrongly assumed that the pick they owed to Utah had some kind of lottery protection on it, but it turns out it doesn't so that was my bad, but if they did have that pick it would be right move to tank and get the highest possible pick possible. I guess it wont matter if they are competitive or not, but it will be the roster that they have now, Theere wont be any moves this season!


But they don't, so why continue with these excuses for not knowing what your talking about?




jayisthebest88 said:


> Without any of your suggested moves the Knicks will already have more then 25 million of cap space for the 2010 off season. By adding T-mac you're creating cap space but thats only because you're other trades created salaries that needed to be cleared in the first place! T-mac will be an UFA in 2010, if the knicks want him they can still sign him even if they dont have his bird rights! NO team will offer him a contract over 10 million or over 3 years, not with all his injury troubles and decline in skills. You seem to think he is the same T-mac as 3 years ago, WAKE UP! he is a shell of his former self, I still think hes a heck of a player, but if the knicks bring him in he will come in as a very good role player not as an all star caliber player. I would really re-check your salary numbers, because they would NOT have 30 million of cap space with all your moves. All your moves are illogical when you think in terms of NewYorks plan, other teams intentions, and salary cap figures.


Again, a free agent all-star is not going to want to go to a team that he'll be apart of a rebuilding situation with. An established star is going to want to compete sooner rather than later and these trade facilitate that, while maintaining that $25 million + cap space your referring to. What do you think sounds more attractive: (1)max contract and ****ty team or (2)max contract and competitive team? Since you've been having a hard time with this logic game, I'm going to give you a hint; the answer is no.2






jayisthebest88 said:


> All these players at the time they signed their contracts were worth taking on in Cubans eyes. Dampier was coming off a career season and the Mavs thought he was the missing peice of the puzzle. Jason Terry has beeen playing as their 6th man but playing starters minutes while putting up all star numbers on that contract. Jerry Stackhouse at the time was their 6th man and was very effective.The Diop Signing was a mistake from the get go but big men are generally always overpaid and it was thought he would be a platoon starter with Dampier. It's not a money issue, clearly they are not scared to spend money, but the mavs are not as wreckless with money as they once were, but looking at the mavs roster, they alerady have their pg's and I really do not think they will want to bring in a big contract liks Tinsleys to play less than 20 mins a game. And also, in your trade the Mavs are also taking on Jared Jefferies. Thats 2 very bad contracts and most likely Jeffefies will not contribute anything. You're trying to tell me that this trade is realistic?


Your delusional if you think Jason Terry is putting up all-star numbers; if he's all-star caliber, then so is JR Smith and Nate Robinson. In either case, your post seems to proceed to rationalize each of the signings but the fact remains that those players are still on the roster. There was always the option of trading those players for financial flexibility but that only occurred with Diop, correct? The fact of the matter is that Cuban is only interested in winning and winning now, which is why he gave up on Devin Harris for a vastly overpaid and over-the-hill Jason Kidd.



jayisthebest88 said:


> Baggage may not be a concern, but it just adds on to everything else that will prevent a team for trading for his contract
> 
> Reasons not to acquire Tinsley:
> 
> ...


Fact, the Mavericks have not shown reluctance to take on players with baggage before. Tinsley should be no different especially if it is for no asset of consequence.




jayisthebest88 said:


> Your plan involves Phoenix giving away a lottery draft pick for nothing, complicated sign and trades involving 4 RFA, (Villanueva, Sessions, Lee, Robinson) You said this is to avoid paying David Lee 10 mill. a sseason and to "preserve" capsapce but u ignore the fact that we would instead be paying Charlie V that 10 mill per year. Charlie Bell is making around 4 mill a year so you're assuming that Ramon Sessions would agree to a contract worth around 2-3 mill. a year and he will prbably be looking for the full MLE or more. And Yes Charlie V will get a contract that is equal to or greater then David Lee's. You have just added 3 contracts that extends past 2010, you said to sign gortat to a MLE deal, tthats another contract past 2010, Your Vince Carter trade depends on if Phoenix will sell their lottery pick for cash, and if New Jersey is willing to unload carter for a salary dump(which NEW Jersey has already said they wont do) you assume that NJ will swap their higher pick for Phoenix's lower pick(the one New York got for free)just because NJ is desperate to trade down for no reason at all, You have just added a max contract for 2010 which is directly against your stated goal of having more space for 2010. Then you assume that the Mavericks will trade for Jamaal Tinsley's and Jared Jefferies massive contracts while giving up their flexibility to make other moves , all for a backup pg who will play less then 20 mins a game and a guy(jefferies) that will rot on their bench for 3 years. So the knicks get to trade thir 2 worst contracts for an expiring contract and 2 role players without having to give up any picks or prospects and the Mavs take them on and it is somehow helping them. You then "create" cap space by trading away VC and Q-rich for T-mac even though Q-rich's contract is expiring in 2010 too , even though the players u traded away (Harrington and Hughes) were already expiring in 2010 anyways and the only reason you need to make cap space now is because you created it in the first place by acquiring carter who you have on intentiion of keeping. And to add to that, trading VC along with Q-rich right after you traded fro VC is a direct violation of the CBA. Basically you made 2 big blockbuster trades to do the same thing if you had done nothing at all, and all it did was clear salaries that you created in the first place.


Since when is $3 million in exchange for a draft pick nothing; especially with a franchise that has done it before? The rest of this message is to grossly incorrect for me to even both attempting to comment on. Seriously, it seems like you lack any basic concept of math or logic. Evidence A: "You then "create" cap space by trading away VC and Q-rich for T-mac even though Q-rich's contract is expiring in 2010 too..." Vince Carter's contract extends a season beyond 2010 and would be $14 million more a season we'd have to pay. Even though Richardson's expires in 2010, his contract is worth just $8 million or so a year; so while we'd be receiving that relief, it would not nearly approach the $20 million of McGrady's contract. Who would you rather have (1) Hughes, Harrington and Richardson or (2) a healthy Tracy McGrady? See, common sense. 



jayisthebest88 said:


> In your "realistic" scenario, every team all of a sudden wants to help the knicks and completely avoids their own needs and for some reason the Knicks are trying their best to create cap space in 2010 that they already have by making a series of blockbusters to end up with the same cap room they already have but instead of commiting to resigning David Lee and Nate Robinson(because according to you, this will help them save caproom in 2010) they will instead pay this money to Charlie Villanueva and Ramon Sessions(who magicaly agrees to sign for less then his market value cause he just loves NY so much) and Charlie Bell)but somehow your suggestion is preserving even more money for 2010....
> 
> 
> Yeah you're suggestions are really realistic and logical...


According to you earlier though, these trades don't help the Knicks out so how would teams be helping us by making them? Your contradicting yourself over and over again. Beyond that, you make wild assumptions of things you want to hear. Villaneuva is not likely to recieve the same type of David Lee who is nearly a full +10 EFF rating higher. I made that point several times in my post and insinuated that even though Lee might not be a signficantly better player, teams would pay him more because he does do something well (double-doubles) while Villanueva does not do any one thing well. Realistically, I see Villanueva's first year salary being around $7 million (ala Anderson Vareajo who has a similar significiance to his team), Sessions at about $6 million and Bell at $4 million. I see David Lee making between $10-$11 million starting out and Robinson $6-$7 million (ala, Jason Terry, Derek Fisher; which I would not pay). Essentially both packages would equal about $16-$17 million but I'd much rather pay that price to 3 players than to just 2. I think that we could legitimately move Charlie Bell for cap space, meaning that we could have two players that are better fits than what we're sending out at $4 million less a year. You tell me what sounds better.


----------

