# Hornets and Knicks trade idea...



## Maldito21

So I read here http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap/2/# that they are willing to make Darren Collison available as long as the team trading for him is willing to accept one of their bad contracts (Emeka Okafor, James Posey or Peja Stojakovic). As a Knick fan I'm thinking forget D. Collison for a minute and lets try and make a run at Chris Paul. We give up D. Lee (sign and trade), wilson chandler, Eddy Curry and a 2011 1st round pick for Chris Paul, Emeka Okafor. Having C. Paul running the Knicks will be have more free agents wanting to play in NY (Lebron James!!!). Emeka Okafor is an instant upgrade to Eddy Curry and should be a decent filler for David Lee's production (rebounds and blocks). Imagine the Knicks run with PG Chris Paul SG ? SF Lebron James PF D. Gallinari C Emeka Okafor, Knicks would still have some salary cap to sign a good free agent. If the Hornets aren't looking to move Chris Paul then I say we give up Wilson Chandler/Eddy Curry for Darren Collison/Emeka Okafor and a 2nd rounder. This upcoming season, Eddy Curry will be a hot commodity, he's in his final season and a lot of teams are looking to stay/get under the cap so we have to get the best deal out of him since we gave up soo much for him. Either way I think this deal will only improve the knicks chances of landing a grade A free agent. What do you guys think?


----------



## urwhatueati8god

The Knicks cannot trade their 2011 first round pick as it is against the rules of the C.B.A. to not have a first round pick in back to back years.


----------



## seifer0406

Peja is expiring after next year, which means that they are only trying to get rid of Okafor. This is retarded if you think about it. Had they kept Tyson Chandler none of this would be an issue. Now they are going to lose a future star point guard because of the trade.


----------



## mvP to the Wee

Yeah sorry that's not gonna happen.


----------



## Diable

I really love these sort of trades. You give up a guy who isn't under contract, an extra large tub of lard and a bench player for one of the best players in the league. Oh, the Hornets get to overpay the living hell out of El Matador also. Perhaps they could keep Paul and overpay Okafor for doing that d thing Lee can't spell.


----------



## E.H. Munro

urwhatueati8god said:


> The Knicks cannot trade their 2011 first round pick as it is against the rules of the C.B.A. to not have a first round pick in back to back years.


Not to mention the fact that they've already traded the rights to their 2011 first to Houston. You can't deal the same pick to two different teams.


----------



## Maldito21

NY Knicks traded their 2011 first round pick to Houston but in return got Houston's 2011 pick. In essence they just swapped picks so yes they can trade their 2011 pick. Houston I believe got NY knicks 2012 1st round pick.


----------



## E.H. Munro

Maldito21 said:


> NY Knicks traded their 2011 first round pick to Houston but in return got Houston's 2011 pick. In essence they just swapped picks so yes they can trade their 2011 pick. Houston I believe got NY knicks 2012 1st round pick.


Yes, but just _why_ would the Hornets trade Chris Paul for a low first round pick?

I mean, they might have dealt him last fall had Boston not extended Rondo (because Boston could have dealt Rondo & Allen for CP3, Okafor & whatever), but at this point there's zero chance that he gets traded.


----------



## Maldito21

I wouldn't say zero chance, I mean CP3 is a phenomenal player, the best PG in the league imo but he is coming off an injury plagued season. New Orleans has a really good PG sitting on the bench that showed glimpses of being a force in the league. I've been a fan of D. Collison since college and I was surprised he fell to New Orleans at 21 then again Rajon Rondo fell to the Celtics at 21 so that shouldn't really be a surprise. I think Collison will eventually be a better Rajon Rondo type of player. I wouldn't mind trading for him at all and that's why I think New Orleans might be more inclined to trade CP3, that and also Darren Collison is a cheaper and still very productive PG so hey why not.


----------



## E.H. Munro

Maldito21 said:


> I wouldn't say zero chance, I mean CP3 is a phenomenal player, the best PG in the league imo but he is coming off an injury plagued season. New Orleans has a really good PG sitting on the bench that showed glimpses of being a force in the league. I've been a fan of D. Collison since college and I was surprised he fell to New Orleans at 21 then again Rajon Rondo fell to the Celtics at 21 so that shouldn't really be a surprise. I think Collison will eventually be a better Rajon Rondo type of player. I wouldn't mind trading for him at all and that's why I think New Orleans might be more inclined to trade CP3, that and also Darren Collison is a cheaper and still very productive PG so hey why not.


They aren't trading CP3 for a low first round pick. There's zero chance. New Jersey might be able to acquire him if they gave up the store. But New York has zero chance. New Orleans is no longer in luxury tax land.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

Diable said:


> I really love these sort of trades. You give up a guy who isn't under contract, an extra large tub of lard and a bench player for one of the best players in the league. Oh, the Hornets get to overpay the living hell out of El Matador also. Perhaps they could keep Paul and overpay Okafor for doing that d thing Lee can't spell.


I'm a little bit confused about the need for sarcasm here. You act as though trades like this do not occur in the NBA. In fact, many of the trades in the NBA occur for purely financial reasons. Just to name a few off the top of my head from this season:
1.) Richard Jefferson for Kurt Thomas, Francisco Oberto and Bruce Bowen (Oberto and Bowen never played for the team).

2.) Jamal Crawford for Speedy Claxton and Acie Law IV (both of whom never developed into rotation players).

3.) Vince Carter for Courtney Lee, Toney Battie and Rafer Alston.

4.) Shaquille O'Neal for Sasha Pavlovic and Ben Wallace (both of whom never played for the Suns).

5.) Hedo Turkoglu for in a 4-team deal for cash.

6.) Shawn Marion sign and trade for what essentially amounted to Devean George.


....So please, give the guy his proper respect because he clearly is up to speed as to how this league operates. The Hornets clearly have financial issues, which is why they are so adament about not wanting to pay the luxury tax. Additionally, they are a lame duck team has no real assets (cap space, draft picks, players, etc.)to offer up to improve this team. As much as they are capable of making the playoffs, they are likely first round fodder so why carry that much payroll in the first place? *The fact of the matter is that the Hornets are a prime example of a team willing to do such a trade as it allows them to rebuild quickly AND clear time for a very capable young PG that plays the same position as their most valuable asset.* With that being said, good idea maldito!


----------



## TwinkieFoot

E.H. Munro said:


> They aren't trading CP3 for a low first round pick. There's zero chance. New Jersey might be able to acquire him if they gave up the store. But New York has zero chance. New Orleans is no longer in luxury tax land.


But his trade isn't simply for a first round pick. It's the pick and an 8 digit cap space in relief. In these economic times and with a ton of teams not paying luxury tax after this upcoming offseason, money-starved teams won't be receiving any financial benefits. The kind of money that the Knicks could potentially free up, would without a doubt be significant as it would drastically reduce operating costs immediately as opposed to waiting for an expiring contract to end.


----------



## E.H. Munro

TwinkieFoot said:


> I'm a little bit confused about the need for sarcasm here. You act as though trades like this do not occur in the NBA. In fact, many of the trades in the NBA occur for purely financial reasons. Just to name a few off the top of my head from this season:
> 1.) Richard Jefferson for Kurt Thomas, Francisco Oberto and Bruce Bowen (Oberto and Bowen never played for the team).
> 
> 2.) Jamal Crawford for Speedy Claxton and Acie Law IV (both of whom never developed into rotation players).
> 
> 3.) Vince Carter for Courtney Lee, Toney Battie and Rafer Alston.
> 
> 4.) Shaquille O'Neal for Sasha Pavlovic and Ben Wallace (both of whom never played for the Suns).
> 
> 5.) Hedo Turkoglu for in a 4-team deal for cash.
> 
> 6.) Shawn Marion sign and trade for what essentially amounted to Devean George.
> 
> 
> ....So please, give the guy his proper respect because he clearly is up to speed as to how this league operates. The Hornets clearly have financial issues, which is why they are so adament about not wanting to pay the luxury tax. Additionally, they are a lame duck team has no real assets (cap space, draft picks, players, etc.)to offer up to improve this team. As much as they are capable of making the playoffs, they are likely first round fodder so why carry that much payroll in the first place? *The fact of the matter is that the Hornets are a prime example of a team willing to do such a trade as it allows them to rebuild quickly AND clear time for a very capable young PG that plays the same position as their most valuable asset.* With that being said, good idea maldito!


Could you point out which one of those guys was a top 3 player on the planet? Hell, some of the "stars" whose trades you're citing were clearly finished (Jefferson & O'Neal). If the Hornets were still over the luxury tax, and the Knicks had something of value to give them, then maybe. But the Hornets are no longer in luxury tax land, so a salary dump including their marquee player does nothing for them. And, the idea behind rebuilding is to put yourself in position to _acquire_ a guy like Chris Paul.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

E.H. Munro said:


> Could you point out which one of those guys was a top 3 player on the planet? Hell, some of the "stars" whose trades you're citing were clearly finished (Jefferson & O'Neal). If the Hornets were still over the luxury tax, and the Knicks had something of value to give them, then maybe. But the Hornets are no longer in luxury tax land, so a salary dump including their marquee player does nothing for them. And, the idea behind rebuilding is to put yourself in position to _acquire_ a guy like Chris Paul.


Could you tell me when Chris Paul ever was a "top 3 player on the planet?" LeBron, Kobe, Wade, Durant, etc. mean nothing to you? I'm not even sure if Paul is the best PG in his own conference with Deron Williams and Steve Nash there. 

The fact of the matter is that while Paul is undoubtedly a star, his value is not at a point where he's attained an "untouchable" status. If it was, the Hornets would have been in the playoffs at the very least this year. If it was, they would have not been beaten as badly as they were by the Nuggets last year. 

Beyond this fact, at barely 6ft and injury-prone, Paul is not the kind of player you give up all-stars for despite his obvious talent. Financial relief and prospects are appropriate for him and Malidito's deal gives the Hornets that. I believe you are terribly underestimating what it means to have $35-$40 million of contracts off your payroll INSTANTLY. Collison appears to be an apt PG capable of adequately fulfilling Paul's role on the team, so why not have him do that $35-$40 million cheaper?


----------



## E.H. Munro

TwinkieFoot said:


> Could you tell me when Chris Paul ever was a "top 3 player on the planet?" LeBron, Kobe, Wade, Durant, etc. mean nothing to you? I'm not even sure if Paul is the best PG in his own conference with Deron Williams and Steve Nash there.


Durant isn't in the same class with CP3 yet. Neither is Steve Nash anymore. Williams only case over Paul is that he was healthy all last year. But healthy Paul is clearly the better player. (I'm a huge Deron fan, but even I'll admit that there's nothing that he has over CP3). If you look at New Orleans splits you might see what I'm talking about. They were playing nearly .700 ball with CP3 before the injury, when their "young franchise point guard" took over and led them to a .300 and change record the rest of the way. 

There is simply nothing that New Orleans gets out of this asinine scenario as there's pretty much zero chance that they end up getting a better player than Chris Paul after trading him. But, hey, they'd have all that salary cap relief to offset the millions of lost revenue due to plummeting ticket sales!


----------



## Diable

I wouldn't do this deal for Collison and Okafor either. Okafor is overpaid, but he's just as good a player as David Lee and you'd end up giving Lee an even worse contract than Okafor has. Truth is the Hornets were in fourth in the West when Paul got hurt last year. They're not over the tax threshold, they're not a horrible franchise...their attendance has been averaging just under capacity for the last three years...They would have made the playoffs last year if David West hadn't decided to throw the ball into the photographers and get Paul hurt. They will most likely make the playoffs next year and they'll also make a profit for their owners just like they have for the past three years...Because they have Chris Paul. This sort of scenario and any defense of it simply demonstrates a complete ignorance of the realities of the Hornets situation. They're not some Hollywood Boulevard slut who will bend over and take it up the ass just to satisfy the delusional fantasies of knicks fans. If you trade Paul then you cease to be a viable franchise in New Orleans and you lose millions upon millions of dollars incidentally.


----------



## Maldito21

Can anyone on this forum actually see the New Orleans Hornets winning it all with their lineup??? Anyone? Look at there lineup, who would help CP3 on that team reach the finals? If you put them in the playoffs as the fourth seed, would they have past the first round against Utah? Would they have past against the 8th seed Thunders?? New Orleans are in a tough conference and CP3 can't do it by himself, no player in the NBA can do it by themself. Look at the top players in the league (Lebron, Kobe, D Wade, Bosh, Kobe, Howard etc.) Did any one of those players win w/out any help? CP3 lifted the Hornets to new levels and its proven that if you have him playing the team is about a 700 ball club and when he's not in the line up, they are at about 300, numbers don't lie. We can go back and forth about who's the best player, the best pg, the best anything but we won't get anywhere because it's all opinionated. The fact is you take CP3 out of the Hornets, they are just another lottery team, you leave him on the hornets, he takes over and dominates the game. To me he's the best PG in the league when he's not injured and thats why I would love to see him in the Knicks uniform. WIll it happen, I don't know. Are the hornets willing to trade their best player to rebuild a franchise that is pretty much stuck in limbo, maybe. I think the Hornets know this and that's why they have to make some moves, shuffle the team a bit and I know the team most willing to talk trades are the Knicks who are desperately trying to turn around there luck. The Knicks have not been the same every since layden took over. Walsh is steering the ship in the right direction but he still has long ways to go. I know Walsh and the whole Knicks organization will be shoppers this off season but they won't be desperate. I don't see them giving max contracts to just anyone. And personally I feel Lebron James will be playing for the Knicks rocking number 6, the only thing I wonder is who is going to be his robin? Draft day prediction, I think Eddie Curry will be moved but for whom, Im not sure. Let's just hope the Knicks improve drastically from last year.


----------



## E.H. Munro

Maldito21 said:


> Can anyone on this forum actually see the New Orleans Hornets winning it all with their lineup??? Anyone? Look at there lineup, who would help CP3 on that team reach the finals? If you put them in the playoffs as the fourth seed, would they have past the first round against Utah? Would they have past against the 8th seed Thunders?? New Orleans are in a tough conference and CP3 can't do it by himself, no player in the NBA can do it by themself. Look at the top players in the league (Lebron, Kobe, D Wade, Bosh, Kobe, Howard etc.) Did any one of those players win w/out any help? CP3 lifted the Hornets to new levels and its proven that if you have him playing the team is about a 700 ball club and when he's not in the line up, they are at about 300, numbers don't lie. We can go back and forth about who's the best player, the best pg, the best anything but we won't get anywhere because it's all opinionated. The fact is you take CP3 out of the Hornets, they are just another lottery team, you leave him on the hornets, he takes over and dominates the game. To me he's the best PG in the league when he's not injured and thats why I would love to see him in the Knicks uniform. WIll it happen, I don't know. Are the hornets willing to trade their best player to rebuild a franchise that is pretty much stuck in limbo, maybe. I think the Hornets know this and that's why they have to make some moves, shuffle the team a bit and I know the team most willing to talk trades are the Knicks who are desperately trying to turn around there luck. The Knicks have not been the same every since layden took over. Walsh is steering the ship in the right direction but he still has long ways to go. I know Walsh and the whole Knicks organization will be shoppers this off season but they won't be desperate. I don't see them giving max contracts to just anyone. And personally I feel Lebron James will be playing for the Knicks rocking number 6, the only thing I wonder is who is going to be his robin? Draft day prediction, I think Eddie Curry will be moved but for whom, Im not sure. Let's just hope the Knicks improve drastically from last year.


The problem with this post, aside from your refusal to use paragraphs, is this. To win they need a player like Chris Paul, and then help for that player. So you're proposing that they nuke the squad and lose tens of millions of dollars in the hopes that they win the powerball twice? What if they end up like Memphis? Then they're actually worse off as they go from a solid playoff team with Paul to a struggling to make the playoffs team without a star of CP3's calibre.

That's not a recipe for success. Boston could have traded for Paul before they extended Rondo, because at least in that case the Hornets would have got a marketable young player on top of $30 million in cap relief in a year where they were potential luxury tax payers. They're no longer over the luxury tax line, so there's no more financial desperation.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

E.H. Munro said:


> Durant isn't in the same class with CP3 yet. Neither is Steve Nash anymore. Williams only case over Paul is that he was healthy all last year. But healthy Paul is clearly the better player. (I'm a huge Deron fan, but even I'll admit that there's nothing that he has over CP3). If you look at New Orleans splits you might see what I'm talking about. They were playing nearly .700 ball with CP3 before the injury, when their "young franchise point guard" took over and led them to a .300 and change record the rest of the way.
> 
> There is simply nothing that New Orleans gets out of this asinine scenario as there's pretty much zero chance that they end up getting a better player than Chris Paul after trading him. But, hey, they'd have all that salary cap relief to offset the millions of lost revenue due to plummeting ticket sales!


We're going to have to agree to disagree on the topic of Durant v. Paul. Although they are significantly different players, I think there is no question that Durant has emerged into the better player. I think their difference on the floor is best articulated by these two statistics: (1)When Durant was on the floor, the Thunder scored +431 more points on the season, +9 for Paul, (2) The win% with Durant on the floor was 67.1% while Paul's was 53.3%. The pundits got it right when they included Durant in the MVP race. They also got it right when Paul wasn't included. 

Nash and Paul are a much more appropriate comparison and although the more obvious statistics (ppg, rpg, apg, etc.)point to Paul being the better player, it fails to tell the entire story. The Phoenix Suns with Steve Nash in the game were responsible for scoring 6.8 more ppg extrapolated over 48mpg. The New Orleans Hornets, 0.3ppg with Chris Paul over the same length in time. Not only do these numbers suggest that Steve Nash plays a more integral role on the Suns team than Paul on the Hornets, but it also suggests that Paul isn't really making much of a difference out there. Although these statistics can be faulty because the numbers for "human victory cigars," might be abnormally skewed, I don't think we would need to worry about that through this comparison.

And yes, Deron Williams is a better player than Paul, so just stop it.

And please, also tell me where you got that ridiculous statistic that Paul had the Hornets with a .700 record. I counted by hand the number of games he played in before his major injury (not including the first 7 games he missed) and it totaled 38 games between October 28th and January 29th. Of those 38 games, the Hornets won 21 which actually is a .550 record. Over the course of the 45 games Paul played, all of which he started, the Hornets won 51.1% of their games. As a team, they finished with a 45.1% winning percentage. 

The question then becomes is a 51.1% win record worth the $71.0 million the Hornets are locked into paying with their team. Or is it worth it to jettison most of those contracts and rebuild around a young PG that has shown to be capable of 19ppg, 9.1apg, 3.5rpg and 1.4spg on 48.5% shooting and 85.2% from the free throw line as a starter. Don't forget the fact that this young PG also is a solid defender. *I think the decision is painfully obvious that you rebuild around the younger PG and allow him time to continue to get better.* The Hornets are not making any playoffs with a .511 record in the Western Conference, so what are they holding out hope for?


----------



## TwinkieFoot

Diable said:


> I wouldn't do this deal for Collison and Okafor either. Okafor is overpaid, but he's just as good a player as David Lee and you'd end up giving Lee an even worse contract than Okafor has.


Clearly someone hasn't been watching Knick games. As much as Okafor is a solid defender and shot-blocker, he fails to approach the level of overall offensive play (scoring, shooting the ball, passing, making plays), rebounding or all around hustle of a David Lee. Lee was an All-Star, something Okafor has not come close to sniffing.



Diable said:


> Truth is the Hornets were in fourth in the West when Paul got hurt last year. They're not over the tax threshold, they're not a horrible franchise...their attendance has been averaging just under capacity for the last three years...They would have made the playoffs last year if David West hadn't decided to throw the ball into the photographers and get Paul hurt.


Truth is, the Hornets only won 51.1% of their games with Paul healthy. They won only 45.1% of their games on the season, despite there being no other major injuries to key players. The 8th seed in the Western Conference (The Thunder) won 61% of their games. Hell, even with Paul before the injuries, the Hornets only won 55% of their games, which still wouldn't be good enough to make the playoffs. What makes you think that next year their going to be better? They have no real means of improving the team significantly because of how many terrible contracts they have and are not bad enough to receive a difference making lottery pick. 

The fact of the matter is that the Western playoff teams from last year are pretty much locks to make it for the next 3-4 years. Their talent base isn't likely to change dramatically during that time and may in fact get better. To top it off, you still have to deal with the Memphis Grizzlies and Houston Rockets who have shown to have some potential in hanging with the big boy's.



Diable said:


> They will most likely make the playoffs next year and they'll also make a profit for their owners just like they have for the past three years...Because they have Chris Paul. This sort of scenario and any defense of it simply demonstrates a complete ignorance of the realities of the Hornets situation. They're not some Hollywood Boulevard slut who will bend over and take it up the ass just to satisfy the delusional fantasies of knicks fans. If you trade Paul then you cease to be a viable franchise in New Orleans and you lose millions upon millions of dollars incidentally.


Again, your assumption that they'll make the playoffs seems to be completely offbase. Also, show me some sources regarding them making a profit. If that were the case, I doubt they would be as overly concerned with the luxury tax as they apparently are. If they were to follow a plan like Maldito's, the "millions, upon millions of dollars" they'd supposedly lose would be completely offset by them having $45 million less in guaranteed contracts to worry about. Teams are getting younger and better, so they need to rebuild if they intend on being relevant in the future.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

E.H. Munro said:


> The problem with this post, aside from your refusal to use paragraphs, is this. *To win they need a player like Chris Paul, and then help for that player.* So you're proposing that they nuke the squad and lose tens of millions of dollars in the hopes that they win the powerball twice? What if they end up like Memphis? Then they're actually worse off as they go from a solid playoff team with Paul to a struggling to make the playoffs team without a star of CP3's calibre.


The thing is that they have a player like Chris Paul; your just not listening. As a rookie, Paul averaged 16.1ppg, 7.8apg, 5.1rpg and 2.2spg on 
43% shooting and 84.7% shooting from the free throw line. As a rookie (when starting and given the same type of minutes as Paul), Darren Collison averaged 19ppg, 9.1apg, 3.5rpg and 1.4spg on 48.5% shooting and 85.2% from the free throw line. Clearly Collison is on a trajectory to become a hell of a ball player.

While Chris Paul at the moment is clearly the better ball player, the Hornets are commited to $70 million in contracts AND ARE NOT A PLAYOFF TEAM. What makes you think that they are somehow going to bring in another key player if they: (1) Are unwilling to pay luxury tax despite all Conference Finals teams paying a substantial amount of tax and (2) Have no assets to improve their current roster? They clearly need to rebuild because they are a lameduck team, not good enough to make the playoffs but good enough to ever get a consequential lottery pick. No team is going to assume those contracts of their's, and the only real asset you have aside from Collins is Paul. Paul likely wouldn't want to be apart of a rebuilding situation, so you might as well make him the bait to actually jumpstart this process.

While you'd have some fan dissention about losing Paul, the fact that the Knicks can assume all of those bad contracts mean that you can contain financial loses by instantly providing the Hornets with cap relief. Somehow, I don't think they'd lose $45 million worth of ticket sales. Besides, the Hornets went through this process once before with Baron Davis and they did just fine surviving the aftermath. What makes you think dealing Chris Paul would be so different?



E.H. Munro said:


> That's not a recipe for success. Boston could have traded for Paul before they extended Rondo, because at least in that case the Hornets would have got a marketable young player on top of $30 million in cap relief in a year where they were potential luxury tax payers. *They're no longer over the luxury tax line, so there's no more financial desperation*.


The thing is this, all 4 teams that made it to the Eastern Conference Finals are paying luxury tax. I can't even remember a time when one of the league's elite didn't pay luxury tax. In order to compete, you have to pay and it is as simple as that. 

Their reluctance to not pay it is even more telling when you also consider the Rasual Butler trade last year. He would have only cost them a few million dollars and yet they gave him up for nothing. That kind of penny-pinching suggests to me that they are financially strained. I guess it comes as no real surprise when you consider that they were one of a handful of teams last year that requested a loan from the NBA. This gives even more credence to the argument that the Hornets should rebuild. They are unwilling/unable to bring in players to help them win at such a high cost, resulting in rebuilding being their only option to improve the team in the future.


----------



## E.H. Munro

TwinkieFoot said:


> The thing is that they have a player like Chris Paul; your just not listening. As a rookie, Paul averaged 16.1ppg, 7.8apg, 5.1rpg and 2.2spg on
> 43% shooting and 84.7% shooting from the free throw line. As a rookie (when starting and given the same type of minutes as Paul), Darren Collison averaged 19ppg, 9.1apg, 3.5rpg and 1.4spg on 48.5% shooting and 85.2% from the free throw line. Clearly Collison is on a trajectory to become a hell of a ball player.


Great, so, since in your estimation Collison is the far better player than Chris Paul, you want the Knicks to trade for Collison and Okafor, right?



TwinkieFoot said:


> And please, also tell me where you got that ridiculous statistic that Paul had the Hornets with a .700 record.


I'm sorry, you're right, it was .643 ball. From the time of his return until his second injury they went 18-10, (they were 19-35 the rest of the year). Yes you can drag down his numbers by including their early season struggles before the first injury and the late period stretch where they brought him back after the rest of the team had quit (and they shut him down for the remainder of the season to keep him from further aggravating injuries). But during that stretch in the middle third of the season the Hornets were a rising playoff contender. And he's been that player for his career. Collison isn't.



TwinkieFoot said:


> And yes, Deron Williams is a better player than Paul, so just stop it.


No he isn't. He isn't a better defensive player, he isn't a better shot creator, and despite the reputation he isn't a better shooter either. Great player, Chris Paul he isn't.


----------



## Diable

So the Hornets are a winning team that makes money...And they should destroy that...Umm Kay.


----------



## E.H. Munro

TwinkieFoot said:


> The thing is this, all 4 teams that made it to the Eastern Conference Finals are paying luxury tax. I can't even remember a time when one of the league's elite didn't pay luxury tax. In order to compete, you have to pay and it is as simple as that.


OK, so let me see if I have this straight, the Hornets have to trade Chris Paul because they're in desperate financial shape from not being past the luxury tax line? And you have to be past the luxury tax line to win? And the only way for the Hornets to get past the luxury tax line is... to trade Chris Paul for scraps?


----------



## girllovesthegame

E.H. Munro said:


> Great, so, since in your estimation Collison is the far better player than Chris Paul, you want the Knicks to trade for Collison and Okafor, right?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, you're right, it was .643 ball. From the time of his return until his second injury they went 18-10, (they were 19-35 the rest of the year). Yes you can drag down his numbers by including their early season struggles before the first injury and the late period stretch where they brought him back after the rest of the team had quit (and they shut him down for the remainder of the season to keep him from further aggravating injuries). But during that stretch in the middle third of the season the Hornets were a rising playoff contender. And he's been that player for his career. Collison isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> *No he isn't. He isn't a better defensive player, he isn't a better shot creator, and despite the reputation he isn't a better shooter either. Great player, Chris Paul he isn't*.


But, but, Deron is bigger and when the Jazz and the Hornets meet, the Jazz has won the majority of the matchups so that must count for something right? This seems to be the most popular conclusion people come to when this debate comes around. :whoknows:

Deron is a great player but I'm just trying to figure out if he's so much better than Paul, why hasn't he even led the league at anything at his position? Why hasn't he been a serious MVP candidate? Why hasn't he made an All-NBA first team yet? Surely if he were doing anything better than Paul he'd have at least done some of this.

And as for Collison, the guy had a nice rookie season, statistically. But I think the Hornets went something like 12-25 with Collison starting. The Hornets didn't win games but hey, his numbers were nice. And apparently that's all that matters to some. What kind of numbers can one put up.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

Diable said:


> So the Hornets are a winning team that makes money...And they should destroy that...Umm Kay.


Oh, yeah. I must have forgot that a sub .500 team that didn't make the playoffs is considered a winning team. My bad.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

E.H. Munro said:


> Great, so, since in your estimation Collison is the far better player than Chris Paul, you want the Knicks to trade for Collison and Okafor, right?


I never said that Collison *will become *a better player than Paul. I definitely did not say that Collison *is* a better player than Paul. I thought this much was evident when I said "*While Chris Paul at the moment is clearly the better ball player*, the Hornets are commited to $70 million in contracts AND ARE NOT A PLAYOFF TEAM." Maybe not.

What I did say is that Collison is a very impressive player, which can be demonstrated by his stats as a starter. I used Paul as a comparison because they play the same position, in the same system and had very similar numbers their first season. Collison certainly has the ability to be one the figureheads of a franchise and is capable of handling the PG duties full-time if you were to trade Chris Paul. That is the only point I was making.





E.H. Munro said:


> I'm sorry, you're right, it was .643 ball. From the time of his return until his second injury they went 18-10, (they were 19-35 the rest of the year). Yes you can drag down his numbers by including their early season struggles before the first injury and the late period stretch where they brought him back after the rest of the team had quit (and they shut him down for the remainder of the season to keep him from further aggravating injuries). But during that stretch in the middle third of the season the Hornets were a rising playoff contender. And he's been that player for his career. Collison isn't.


Isn't it a little convenient that you exclude 17 games from the equation that Paul did play in? That isn't exactly chump change; it's 38% of the 45games he freaking played. While your at it, why don't you discard 38% of the games the Knicks lost to make them look like a powerhouse. Once again, the Hornets won only 51.1% of the games Paul played in over 45 games. It was not good enough to get into the playoffs this year and likely will not be in the future.



E.H. Munro said:


> No he isn't. He isn't a better defensive player, he isn't a better shot creator, and despite the reputation he isn't a better shooter either. Great player, Chris Paul he isn't.


Thats pure conjecture. Leading the league in steals doesn't mean your a better defender than another player. It doesn't even guarantee you being a good defender. There are a few statistics that are hard to ignore or dispute, like the ones I provided with reference to comparisons between Paul and other top-tier players in the league. They point the finger away from Paul being a superior player and you haven't commented on them. Why?


----------



## TwinkieFoot

E.H. Munro said:


> OK, so let me see if I have this straight, the Hornets have to trade Chris Paul because they're in desperate financial shape from not being past the luxury tax line? And you have to be past the luxury tax line to win? And the only way for the Hornets to get past the luxury tax line is... to trade Chris Paul for scraps?


Reading comphrension is key in all of this. Once again, I stated that in order to really be a solid playoff team i.e. Conference Finals material, you need to exceed the luxury tax. The Hornets, however, have demonstrated a reluctance to do so even if it means a few million dollars. 

The more damning fact in all of this is that even if the Hornets were willing to pay the luxury tax, they do not have the assets to make it worth wild (trade or free agent signing). Their only feasible method of truly improving the team is through the draft since they do not necessarily have to exchange an asset for another asset under these circumstances. The problem with the draft, however, is that the fact that they are not bad enough to gain a lottery pick high enough to bring in a big-time game changer. This leaves the Hornets as a type of lame duck; not good enough to make the playoffs but not bad enough to bring in a big-time game changer via the draft.

The solution to all this? REBUILD. BLOW IT UP. Chris Paul is a hell of an asset- your best on the team. He is the only player that would enable the Hornets to move those horrible contracts of their's. The Knicks can assume ALL of those contracts (Stojackovic, Okafor, Posey, Peterson; West and Wright if you consider them to be bad contracts) in exchange for IMMEDIATE payroll relief. That is an instant $45 million the Hornets would not be accountable for, which isn't chump change. Additionally, the Knicks could potentially give up a Danilo Gallinari, a Toney Douglas and/or a Wilson Chandler as "compensation." They are certainly not the player Paul is and likely will never make the kind of contributions he has but consider that to be the cost of assuming $45 million worth of debt. In the meantime, the Hornets could collect their lottery picks (ala the Blazers or Thunder) in order to build a cheaper team with loads of potential and actual promise in the playoffs. The process would take 3-4 years but would you prefer to be mediocre (with two great players at the same position) during that span of time?


----------



## TwinkieFoot

girllovesthegame said:


> But, but, Deron is bigger and when the Jazz and the Hornets meet, the Jazz has won the majority of the matchups so that must count for something right? This seems to be the most popular conclusion people come to when this debate comes around. :whoknows:
> 
> *Deron is a great player but I'm just trying to figure out if he's so much better than Paul, why hasn't he even led the league at anything at his position?* Why hasn't he been a serious MVP candidate? Why hasn't he made an All-NBA first team yet? Surely if he were doing anything better than Paul he'd have at least done some of this.
> 
> And as for Collison, the guy had a nice rookie season, statistically. But I think the Hornets went something like 12-25 with Collison starting. The Hornets didn't win games but hey, his numbers were nice. And apparently that's all that matters to some. What kind of numbers can one put up.


Probably because he was too busy getting out of the first-round with a team not much more talented than the Hornets. How about Paul? 

BTW, "thinking the Hornets went something like 12-25" doesn't exactly strike me as a fact. Just simply say that the Hornets did not perform as well without Paul, which would be a fact seems more reasonable. One that I would respond to by saying that Collison is just a 22 year player coming off his rookie season. He is going to get better and if those stats are his starting point, a lot better. Mind telling me what the Hornets record was when Paul was a rookie (Hint: 38-44)? I bet it was not that impressive and not good enough to make the playoffs (Hint: it was 38-44).


----------



## TwinkieFoot

BTW, George Shinn is selling the Hornets. What do owners do when they are on the verge of selling their team? Cut payroll.


----------



## Diable

I'm really not interested in debating the delusional, but the Hornets franchise value would only drop by between 75 and 100 million dollars the moment after you traded Paul. He is what makes the franchise solvent and profitable. Contractually George Shinn can only sell the Hornets to one person, a billionaire named Bobby CHouest who would not buy the team unless they kept Chris Paul. So that argument is absolutely false in every imaginable way.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

Diable said:


> I'm really not interested in debating the delusional, but the Hornets franchise value would only drop by between 75 and 100 million dollars the moment after you traded Paul. He is what makes the franchise solvent and profitable. Contractually George Shinn can only sell the Hornets to one person, a billionaire named Bobby CHouest who would not buy the team unless they kept Chris Paul. So that argument is absolutely false in every imaginable way.


Any facts in there or more pure conjecture? Unless your working for Forbes as some high-ranking official, I don't want to hear this 75-100 million bologne. They survived trading Baron Davis by himself for scraps and didn't have a Darren Collison waiting in the wings. I also don't need to hear you toss in the "billionaire" tag for Bobby CHouest because if you haven't noticed, every NBA owner is a billionaire. That is how your able to dish out ten's of millions of dollars on a game that you might not even yield a profit from. 

Now that we established he is no different from any other billionaire owner, what makes you believe he won't follow protocol? The Nets dropped salary in order for Prokhorov to buy the team. The Bobcats moved Emeka Okafor for a near expiring contract when Bob Johnson had the team for sale. The Sonics/Thunder initiated a rebuilding process (i.e. trim payroll) when Clay Bennet was buying the team. The Warriors are rumored to be for sale. What did they do today? They traded Corey Maggette for expiring contracts (i.e. Dan Gadzuric and Charlie Bell). What makes Chouset any different? He might not want to part with Chris Paul but who is going to take any of those contracts without added incentive?


----------



## Maldito21

CP3 or D Coll, give me whomever. They are both better than anyone running the knicks right now. Collison has a very bright future ahead of him and if you can't see that then you shouldn't be posting on this site. As far as who's the better PG Deron Williams or CP3, I'd give the edge to CP3 based on what's he done in New Orleans. Deron has the better team built around him, a legitimate PF in Boozer, a good C Okur, a heck of shooter in Korver, a really good back up PF in Milsap, and even though he hasn't played as well as he did in his first couple of seasons in the NBA AK47 is still a good baller. Deron has the pieces to be successful, what could CP3 do in a system like that? CP3 has a good PF in David West, a decent C in Okafor, a good sg in marcus thorton (imo had a very impressive rookie season), a really really good back that could start on a lot of teams in D Coll, and the rest are just fillers. Come on, you can't compare the two teams. On a side note, 3 years ago, I took a flight from Orlando to Philadelphia and out of pure luck Jameer Nelson sat right next to me, I thought it was pretty funny because I flew coach and I was like this guy makes a decent living, why is he even on the same plane. Anyway he over slept, had to catch the next flight to philly so that flight was the only one available and the one leaving the soonest. We talked a little on the flight about basketball and I asked him who was his toughest opponent and that he hates to facing, I remember Kidd was my first guess, he said Kidd, Nash, Iverson, D. WIll, CP3 were all tough but the best PG he faces all year is C Billiups... I was completely shocked at that response. Again this was about 3 years ago so times have changed, players have changed but I found that quite interesting. Isn't it funny how now all over the media teams are trying to make a deal for CP3, weird right? Let's see what happens.


----------



## Gotham2krazy

Personally, the Hornets could keep CP3, deal us Thornton or Collison. Sign guys like Felton, Amir Johnson while re-signing Earl Barron and T-Mac for cheap.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

I found this little excerpt on an ESPN article about Chris Paul possibly being moved for financial reasons (surprise, surprise):



> "If George Shinn can't sell the team, I think Chris Paul will be traded," an executive from an Eastern Conference team said. "*Shinn's strapped for money. He's going to have to move him*.......After reaching the second round of the playoffs two years ago, the Hornets have been on the decline and failed to make the postseason last year. *Opposing executives aren't convinced the club has the financial resources to build the team into a consistent contender*."


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5317801 

It seems as though my speculations were on point.


----------



## E.H. Munro

TwinkieFoot said:


> Isn't it a little convenient that you exclude 17 games from the equation that Paul did play in? That isn't exactly chump change; it's 38% of the 45games he freaking played. While your at it, why don't you discard 38% of the games the Knicks lost to make them look like a powerhouse. Once again, the Hornets won only 51.1% of the games Paul played in over 45 games. It was not good enough to get into the playoffs this year and likely will not be in the future.


If Chris Paul is such a loser, then you're against dealing for him, right? You want that winner Darren Collison instead, right? Oh, wait, you do seem obsessed with trading for the "loser". I guess you're just trying to help the Hornets out by trading for him, right? (Leaving aside the fact that in the two years previous the Hornets went 102-56 with Paul, compare that to this year's record if you're going to insist that the Hornets middle third of the season was an aberration and Paul's just a malcontented loser that the Hornets should be looking to trade so that they can field a franchise whose best player would be Nick Collison. Oh, yeah, season ticket and luxury suite renewals will be going through the roof!)



TwinkieFoot said:


> There are a few statistics that are hard to ignore or dispute, like the ones I provided with reference to comparisons between Paul and other top-tier players in the league. They point the finger away from Paul being a superior player and you haven't commented on them. Why?


Leaving aside his injury shortened campaign this year, Paul recorded the highest PER season for a point guard, ever. He produces ridiculous numbers. I know that you think it's perfectly logical that a "loser" like Chris Paul gets given away for nothing. But really no one else does. From a marketing perspective alone the attendance in New Orleans will vanish overnight. Luxury box sales plummet because businesses no longer have any desire for the perk. Then the Hornets have to pray that they hit the lottery twice and end up with two top 20 players out of the draft. Sometimes it happens. Most times you get the Memphis Grizzles.




TwinkieFoot said:


> It seems as though my speculations were on point.


Your speculation that New Orleans would give away Chris Paul for nothing were most certainly not on point. Because the trade Broussard was discussing was about a top 3 pick (i.e. Favors or Cousins, legitimate cornerstone players) and Devin Harris (who probably would be bundled with Okafor and shipped out). Not a giveaway.


----------



## E.H. Munro

TwinkieFoot said:


> The Nets dropped salary in order for Prokhorov to buy the team.


Right, it had zilch to do with clearing the decks for a free agent signing frenzy, it was all about cutting costs so that the new owner wouldn't have to spend the money... Wait, but aren't the Nets trying to trade for Chris Paul?



TwinkieFoot said:


> The Bobcats moved Emeka Okafor for a near expiring contract when Bob Johnson had the team for sale.


Clearly Emeka Okafor is the Chris Paul of big men. When discussing the best 4s/5s in the game, Okafor is nearly always at the top of the list.



TwinkieFoot said:


> The Sonics/Thunder initiated a rebuilding process (i.e. trim payroll) when Clay Bennet was buying the team. The Warriors are rumored to be for sale. What did they do today? They traded Corey Maggette for expiring contracts (i.e. Dan Gadzuric and Charlie Bell). What makes Chouset any different? He might not want to part with Chris Paul but who is going to take any of those contracts without added incentive?


Corey Maggette, Emeka Okafor, clearly these are better players than that "loser", Chris Paul. If franchise players like those guys get moved for scraps, a loser like CP3 is sure to be suiting up for the Knicks in exchange for nothing!


----------



## E.H. Munro

TwinkieFoot said:


> Mind telling me what the Hornets record was when Paul was a rookie (Hint: 38-44)? I bet it was not that impressive and not good enough to make the playoffs (Hint: it was 38-44).


Mind telling me what the Hornets record was the year before Paul arrived? Mind telling me what the Hornets record was without that "loser" Chris Paul, this year?


----------



## TwinkieFoot

E.H. Munro said:


> If Chris Paul is such a loser, then you're against dealing for him, right? You want that winner Darren Collison instead, right? Oh, wait, you do seem obsessed with trading for the "loser". I guess you're just trying to help the Hornets out by trading for him, right? (Leaving aside the fact that in the two years previous the Hornets went 102-56 with Paul, compare that to this year's record if you're going to insist that the Hornets middle third of the season was an aberration and Paul's just a malcontented loser that the Hornets should be looking to trade so that they can field a franchise whose best player would be Nick Collison. Oh, yeah, season ticket and luxury suite renewals will be going through the roof!)


Once again, reading comphrension is key in this debate. Select a quote in which I said Chris Paul was a "loser." Select a quote or quotes where I stated Paul wasn't a good player. You'd be hard pressed to find any. Why? BECAUSE I NEVER SAID THAT.

What I did say is that Chris Paul is not an "untouchable." Hell, Shaq was traded in his prime. The fact of the matter is that the "untouchable" status has been reserved for a precious few in this league and that is a result of their unequivocable ability to carry a team. 

As much as Paul is a hell of a ball player, he is not good enough to carry a Hornets team with such a poor supporting cast in an excellent Western Conference. They are woefully overpaid long-term and are rapidly aging (Peja Stojackovic, James Posey, Morris Peterson, David West ring a bell?). That Hornets *TEAM*(emphasis on the team), is not good enough to do much of anything despite Paul being one of premier players in the league. That *TEAM* is meered with terrible long-term contracts not many teams would trade for outright. Therefore, the only way to improve that *TEAM* is to move Paul along with those terrible contracts to rebuild. Simple as pie. You should Reread it again just so I don't have to keep repeating points though. 





E.H. Munro said:


> Leaving aside his injury shortened campaign this year, Paul recorded the highest PER season for a point guard, ever. He produces ridiculous numbers. I know that you think it's perfectly logical that a "loser" like Chris Paul gets given away for nothing. But really no one else does. From a marketing perspective alone the attendance in New Orleans will vanish overnight. Luxury box sales plummet because businesses no longer have any desire for the perk. Then the Hornets have to pray that they hit the lottery twice and end up with two top 20 players out of the draft. Sometimes it happens. Most times you get the Memphis Grizzles.


First off, the Memphis Grizzlies have both OJ Mayo and a guy that will likely be vastly overpaid this free agency in Rudy Gay. They may in fact become a better team than the Hornets, so I might lay off the insults. The Grizzlies are young, talented and appear to be coming into their own as a collective unit whereas the Hornets are old, undertalented and are clearly in a decline that everyone but Hornet fans can see.

Once again, I'm not saying that Chris Paul is not the Hornets main draw. To the contrary, I thought I clearly suggested the opposite when I stated he was the team's best asset. I guess this is where the reading comphrension part comes into play. 

The fact of the matter is that your not going to be able to build a winner with Chris Paul as an island alone; with your 2nd best player quickly coming into his own playing only 10mpg behind Paul. *Hornet fans are going to games now because of what the team use to be.* What's going to happen when the team goes further into decline with an aging supporting cast locked into long-term deals? This happened before with the Baron Davis-led Hornets and somehow the franchise managed to survive the hit in ticket sales while rebuilding. This has happened with plenty of teams that traded their "franchise" player to rebuild, so I do not understand why moving Paul and the Hornets supporting cast for cap space is unfathomable.





E.H. Munro said:


> Your speculation that New Orleans would give away Chris Paul for nothing were most certainly not on point. Because the trade Broussard was discussing was about a top 3 pick (i.e. Favors or Cousins, legitimate cornerstone players) and Devin Harris (who probably would be bundled with Okafor and shipped out). Not a giveaway.


But it turns out that trade was never proposed, so you really can't presume that can be used as the parameters for any impending trades. What was suggested time and time again in the article was Shinn's strain financially, Paul wanting to play for a winner and the fact that the Hornets, as presently constructed, can not compete in the Western Conference. All those suggest a cap dumping trade, which is right up the Knicks ally.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

E.H. Munro said:


> Right, it had zilch to do with clearing the decks for a free agent signing frenzy, it was all about cutting costs so that the new owner wouldn't have to spend the money... Wait, but aren't the Nets trying to trade for Chris Paul?


Somehow dealing Jason Kidd (a James favorite) and Vince Carter (an excellent compliment) don't exactly seem like moves to make if your looking to bring in a LeBron James. Just saying. I also love how you managed to not comment on the 4 other examples I mentioned that prove my point. Can you actually focus on points rather than trying to duck them?





E.H. Munro said:


> Clearly Emeka Okafor is the Chris Paul of big men. When discussing the best 4s/5s in the game, Okafor is nearly always at the top of the list.


Whose list? Your list? Cause Okafor hasn't been relevant to the "big man" discussion since his rookie season. 

There are at least 10 center's better than him (Dwight Howard, Yao Ming, Tim Duncan, Chris Kaman, Joakim Noah, Andrew Bynum, Greg Oden, Marc Gasol, Shaq, Andrew Bogut) and everyone knows that the real wealth of talent for big men is found at the 4spot and not the 5 spot. Add to the fact that Okafor is injury-prone and unwilling to play through pain and all you have is a decent role player making 8 figures for the next 4 seasons. Not exactly what I'd call an asset in this cost conscious league.





E.H. Munro said:


> Corey Maggette, Emeka Okafor, clearly these are better players than that "loser", Chris Paul. If franchise players like those guys get moved for scraps, a loser like CP3 is sure to be suiting up for the Knicks in exchange for nothing!


*Again, reading comphrension is key in this discussion. *I never said that Paul is a "loser" or the problem with the Hornets. To the contrary, I clearly suggested he is one of the few things that is right. How else would you explain teams willing to take on terrible contracts like Peja Stojackovic, Emeka Okafor, James Posey and/or Morris Peterson in combination with one another? How else would you explain a team willing to assume those contracts without trading bad contracts of their own? Only because Paul is a hell of a ball player.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

E.H. Munro said:


> Mind telling me what the Hornets record was the year before Paul arrived? Mind telling me what the Hornets record was without that "loser" Chris Paul, this year?


The point wasn't to devalue Paul's capabilities as a player. The point was to demonstrate it is difficult for a young player to single-handedly carry a team no matter how great he is. The Hornets record with Collison at the helm- especially on a team that Paul can't win with- should not be so central in the discussion. Obviously Collison is going to get better and if the team has cap space and draft picks, may actually be able to turn the team into a winner.


----------



## E.H. Munro

TwinkieFoot said:


> Somehow dealing Jason Kidd (a James favorite) and Vince Carter (an excellent compliment) don't exactly seem like moves to make if your looking to bring in a LeBron James. Just saying. I also love how you managed to not comment on the 4 other examples I mentioned that prove my point. Can you actually focus on points rather than trying to duck them?


So you're now claiming that Jason Kidd demanded a trade to help the Nets clear salary for the new owner before the team ever went on the market? Why did Jason Kidd care about the sale of the Nets again? And if the Nets made the deal to clear salary, why did they take back a longer term, high-money contract in the deal again?



TwinkieFoot said:


> Whose list? Your list? Cause Okafor hasn't been relevant to the "big man" discussion since his rookie season.


You equated a theoretical deal, where New Orleans gives away one of the best basketball players on the planet for, literally, nothing, to the deals of an overpriced, undersized center and the NBA's equivalent of colorectal cancer (a really expensive and often terminal pain in the ass). So clearly you think that either Okafor & Maggette are _teh ossum_ or that Chris Paul is just some overrated loser.



TwinkieFoot said:


> I never said that Paul is a "loser" or the problem with the Hornets. To the contrary, I clearly suggested he is one of the few things that is right. How else would you explain teams willing to take on terrible contracts like Peja Stojackovic, Emeka Okafor, James Posey and/or Morris Peterson in combination with one another? How else would you explain a team willing to assume those contracts without trading bad contracts of their own? Only because Paul is a hell of a ball player.


You have absolutely said the exact opposite of this with your repeated contention that New Orleans would absolutely deal Chris Paul for nothing, and the insistence that the theoretical deal, which involves New Orleans taking back ****ty contracts, is reasonable. If you're now agreeing with us that whoever wants Paul is going to have to provide a good package in return, welcome to sanity.


----------



## E.H. Munro

TwinkieFoot said:


> The point wasn't to devalue Paul's capabilities as a player. The point was to demonstrate it is difficult for a young player to single-handedly carry a team no matter how great he is. The Hornets record with Collison at the helm- especially on a team that Paul can't win with- should not be so central in the discussion. Obviously Collison is going to get better and if the team has cap space and draft picks, may actually be able to turn the team into a winner.


Except that Hornets record was 2.1x better the year after Paul arrived. So you're essentially claiming that we can't hold it against Collison that the Hornets played much ****tier with him as a starter because when Chris Paul was a rookie they played much better with him.


----------



## Maldito21

E.H. Munro how are you an administrator??? You're not reading the posts correctly and misinterpreting a lot on what is said on this forum. I can see that your image of the game is very distorted when you claimed Okafor is one of the top 4/5's in the league, he was number 15 compared to all the 5's in scoring, 8th in fg%, 22nd in ft%, 9th in rebounds, 24th in assists, 10th in steals, 12th in blocks. This stat only applies for CENTERS (5's), which shows to me doesn't even mean he's the best player at his position. On the other hand, David Lee beat Okafor on almost every category except blocks 1st in scoring, 2nd in rpg, 7th in fg%, 4th in ft%, 1st in apg, 2nd in steals pg, 33rd in blocks and 2nd in double doubles not bad for an undersized C who plays out of position. So yeah Okafor is far from being the top at his 4/5 position. But if thats how you see it then I don't want to ruin your view of him. If you don't trust the stats I posted check them out at ESPN for the 09-10 regular season.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

E.H. Munro said:


> So you're now claiming that Jason Kidd demanded a trade to help the Nets clear salary for the new owner before the team ever went on the market? Why did Jason Kidd care about the sale of the Nets again? And if the Nets made the deal to clear salary, why did they take back a longer term, high-money contract in the deal again?


Dude! What is it that you are talking about? First off, Jason Kidd demanded a trade because the team wasn't interested in adding payroll but rather rebuild in anticipation of their move to Brooklyn and the inevitable sale to Prohokrov.

At his age, Kidd wanted no part of it and requested a trade. What was the trade? Devin Harris, DeSagna Diop, Maurice Ager, Trenton Hassell, Keith Van Horn and Ryan Anderson for essentially Jason Kidd. After that first season, *only Devin Harris *and *Trenton Hassell *stuck with the Nets. You want to know what their combined salary was? $7.5 million. You want to know how much Jason Kidd made when he was traded? $18.1 million. Remind me how the Nets took back longer term contracts when they paid less in the immediate future and had Devin Harris' rookie contract expire during the 2007-2008 season while Kidd's contract expired during the 2008-2009offseason. Have you resorted to just making stuff up now? I can back my comments up:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/k/kiddja01.html





E.H. Munro said:


> You equated a theoretical deal, where New Orleans gives away one of the best basketball players on the planet for, literally, nothing, to the deals of an overpriced, undersized center and the NBA's equivalent of colorectal cancer (a really expensive and often terminal pain in the ass). So clearly you think that either Okafor & Maggette are _teh ossum_ or that Chris Paul is just some overrated loser.


You have a way of twisting words. No where did I equate Chris Paul's value to Okafor's or Maggette's. I simply said that with circumstances in which a franchise is for sale/strapped for cash, you see huge salary dumps and/or a rebuilding process started. Shinn is not only looking to sell the team but he is also reportedly strapped for cash, which is evident by: (1) his unwillingness to pay the luxury tax, (2) him taking out a loan for the Hornets before last season to cover costs, and (3)the numerous reports stating this fact. All of these are common symptoms of a team making a trade based moreso on financial aims/ambitions than on actual basketball. You can avoid the evidence that is staring you in the face or accept the facts, which are fairly obvious. 

A trade that involves the Knicks giving up *Danilo Gallinari *(recent 6th pick and top 3 shooter in the league), *Wilson Chandler *(good young role player), *Toney Douglas *(good 6th man) and *Eddy Curry *(expiring contract) in exchange for Chris Paul, Pedrag Stojackovic, Emeka Okafor and James Posey could happen. The Hornets are instantly free of having to pay $28 million and would have Eddy Curry's $11.2 million coming off the books for next season. That would total approximately $41 million (if you include Wilson Chandler's contract) they wouldn't be responsible for, which ain't exactly chump change especially when they are dangerously close to luxury tax terriority. Losing Chris Paul is a tough pill to swallow but you still would have David West as trade bait for more young value players like Gallinari and Chandler.




E.H. Munro said:


> You have absolutely said the exact opposite of this with your repeated contention that New Orleans would absolutely deal Chris Paul for nothing, and the insistence that the theoretical deal, which involves New Orleans taking back ****ty contracts, is reasonable. If you're now agreeing with us that whoever wants Paul is going to have to provide a good package in return, welcome to sanity.


Really? I said this? Then why would I want my team to take on all those terrible contracts not attached to Chris Paul? Why would I want to see Chris Paul on the Knicks if I thought he was a "loser" as you imply? Can you answer these questions this time around and not side-step them as you did the countless others I have posed to you?

Can you also explain to me what "****ty contracts" the Hornets would be receiving in Maldito or my trade proposal? LOL, the Knicks have just 5 contracts and only Eddy Curry has 8 digits attached to it. I would say it is a bad contract given what he has contributed the past two seasons *but * EDDY CURRY IS AN EXPIRING CONTRACT. In either case, the Hornets would be SAVING $28 million IMMEDIATELY and nearly $42 million by the start of the 2011-2012 season. That's a good package especially when it includes young prospects that will grow into a solid supporting cast. It doesn't get you a ball player that can perform as well as Paul *BUT* the type of trade the Hornets likely will pursue is a financially driven one, and is good because it fulfills what they'd be looking for.


----------



## E.H. Munro

Maldito21 said:


> I can see that your image of the game is very distorted when you claimed Okafor is one of the top 4/5's in the league


Did I?


----------



## Maldito21

E.H. Munro said:


> Clearly Emeka Okafor is the Chris Paul of big men. When discussing the best 4s/5s in the game, Okafor is nearly always at the top of the list.


Wasn't that what you said? Or did I misread what you typed.


----------



## E.H. Munro

TwinkieFoot said:


> Dude! What is it that you are talking about? First off, Jason Kidd demanded a trade because the team wasn't interested in adding payroll but rather rebuild in anticipation of their move to Brooklyn and the inevitable sale to Prohokrov.


So now Jason Kidd used his psychic powers to see into the future and see that the Nets were going to cut salary in order to be sold, and so demanded a trade to help the Nets clear salary for the sale of the team that wasn't on the open market at the time. And just why did the Nets _add_ long term payroll in that trade again? 

Earlier you insisted that the Hornets would be open to giving away Paul for nothing to cut long term payroll, and cited the Kidd trade as an example. Except that the Nets added long term payroll in that deal. _Because Devin Harris had already signed his six year sixty plus million dollar extension then_. (You're going to lie here and insist this wasn't the case, but you can simply look up the relevant threads as we debated this trade into oblivion when it happened, and I defended Dallas on the grounds that the extension they gave the heavily overrated Harris was a disaster, and Dallas was smart enough to get out from under the deal while they still had the chance.) So, which is it? Do teams reduce short term payroll and add a ****load of long-term cash before a sale? Or the opposite? You seem to be having trouble making up your mind here.



TwinkieFoot said:


> You have a way of twisting words. No where did I equate Chris Paul's value to Okafor's or Maggette's.


Right, you just cited them as examples of teams giving away comparable players prior to a franchise sale, which should in no way be interpreted to mean that they were actually comparable. Gotcha.



TwinkieFoot said:


> A trade that involves the Knicks giving up *Danilo Gallinari *(recent 6th pick and top 3 shooter in the league), *Wilson Chandler *(good young role player), *Toney Douglas *(good 6th man) and *Eddy Curry *(expiring contract) in exchange for Chris Paul, Pedrag Stojackovic, Emeka Okafor and James Posey could happen.


Now that is a much more realistic trade than the ones that were being discussed earlier. Welcome back to the real world. It probably isn't enough because there isn't a single marketable/cornerstone player in the lot. But it's more realistic than Chris Paul for table scraps (which is where this thread started).


----------



## E.H. Munro

Maldito21 said:


> Wasn't that what you said? Or did I misread what you typed.


You certainly misinterpreted my words.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

E.H. Munro said:


> You certainly misinterpreted my words.


If by "misinterpreted" you mean "100% on point" then sure. The fact of the matter is that you called Emeka Okafor one of the best 4/5s in the league. If I recall correctly the "Chris Paul of 4/5s" was what you referred to Emeka Okafor as and considering that you stated Chris Paul is one of the "top 3 players" in the world, I would imagine you'd think Okafor was one of the top 3 power-forwards/centers in the world.


----------



## E.H. Munro

TwinkieFoot said:


> If by "misinterpreted" you mean "100% on point" then sure. The fact of the matter is that you called Emeka Okafor one of the best 4/5s in the league.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

E.H. Munro said:


> So now Jason Kidd used his psychic powers to see into the future and see that the Nets were going to cut salary in order to be sold, and so demanded a trade to help the Nets clear salary for the sale of the team that wasn't on the open market at the time. And just why did the Nets _add_ long term payroll in that trade again?


Once again, Jason Kidd was dealt when the Nets were unwilling to add more payroll causing him to demand a trade. What was he dealt for? A young prospect and tons of financial flexibility before the expiration of his contract. Both are facts. Both support my argument.




E.H. Munro said:


> Earlier you insisted that the Hornets would be open to giving away Paul for nothing to cut long term payroll, and cited the Kidd trade as an example. Except that the Nets added long term payroll in that deal. _Because Devin Harris had already signed his six year sixty plus million dollar extension then_. (You're going to lie here and insist this wasn't the case, but you can simply look up the relevant threads as we debated this trade into oblivion when it happened, and I defended Dallas on the grounds that the extension they gave the heavily overrated Harris was a disaster, and Dallas was smart enough to get out from under the deal while they still had the chance.) So, which is it? Do teams reduce short term payroll and add a ****load of long-term cash before a sale? Or the opposite? You seem to be having trouble making up your mind here.


Devin Harris did sign his contract extension before being traded to the New Jersey Nets (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3017501). Although I admit that I didn't realize it, it does not change much in the way of my argument. OWNERS MAKE FINANCIAL MOVES WHEN EITHER *STRAPPED FOR CASH *AND/OR SELLING THEIR TEAM. Ratner would be strapped for cash having: 1.) recently purchased the team, 2.)made plans for a move to Brooklyn i.e. building an arena in Brooklyn and 3.)the dramatic economic downturn in our country. This resulted in the Kidd demanding a trade when it became clear that the Nets were not looking to add payroll (due to the aforementioned reasons).

Instead, the Nets received tons of financial relief from dealing Kidd. He was paid $19.7 million and $21.4 million following the trade. Devin Harris was paid $4 million and $7.8 million. Trenton Hassell was paid $4.3 million each of those respective seasons. Both players total for each season was $8.3 and $12.1 million. Your essentially talking about the Nets saving *at least* $20 million from having made the trade. The amount might be much more if luxury tax was figured into the team's bill. 

Harris does not, neither then or now, approach the caliber of player that Kidd is. The deal, however, was made to trim payroll and add a prospect that would allow the team to *rebuild.* Much like I have been saying, the Hornets when dealing Paul would pursue a deal that allows them financial flexibility moreso than anything else and prospects that while promising, do not approach the level of player being traded.




E.H. Munro said:


> Right, you just cited them as examples of teams giving away comparable players prior to a franchise sale, which should in no way be interpreted to mean that they were actually comparable. Gotcha.


I never stated Corey Maggette or Emeka Okafor are comparable to Chris Paul. I simply was saying that owners shed contracts when either strapped for cash and/or are selling a team. Those two players (Okafor and Maggette) are prime examples of trades that a team makes under such circumstances. Pedrag Stojackovic, James Posey, Morris Peterson, and Emeka Okafor (once again) are certainly the types of contracts an owner would want to move for financial reasons but no other team wants them because they are high-end and long term. Since Paul is the only asset on your team (aside from Collison), you trade him to make it work and since you trade him, you rebuild. Simple as pie.



E.H. Munro said:


> Now that is a much more realistic trade than the ones that were being discussed earlier. Welcome back to the real world. It probably isn't enough because there isn't a single marketable/cornerstone player in the lot. But it's more realistic than Chris Paul for table scraps (which is where this thread started).


I wasn't commenting about Maldito's trade, as much as what you were saying regarding the type of trade necessary to acquire Paul. On that note, you barely commented about Maldito's trade but rather the ability of the Knicks to land Paul. On a number of occassions, you stated the Knicks did not have the means to do so. In case your drawing a blank, here are a few quotes of you doing so:



> "I mean, they might have dealt him last fall had Boston not extended Rondo (because Boston could have dealt Rondo & Allen for CP3, Okafor & whatever), but at this point *there's zero chance that he (Chris Paul) gets traded*."-E.H. Munro, 6/14 @ 11:01pm
> 
> "New Jersey might be able to acquire him if they gave up the store. *But New York has zero chance*. New Orleans is no longer in luxury tax land."-E.H. Munro, 6/20 @ 12:00am
> 
> "*If* the Hornets were still over the luxury tax, and *the Knicks had something of value to give them, then maybe.* But the Hornets are no longer in luxury tax land, so *a salary dump including their marquee player does nothing for them. And, the idea behind rebuilding is to put yourself in position to acquire a guy like Chris Paul*.-E.H. Munro, 6/20 @ 3:12pm
> 
> "There is simply nothing that New Orleans gets out of this asinine scenario as *there's pretty much zero chance that they end up getting a better player than Chris Paul after trading him.* But, hey, they'd have all that salary cap relief to offset the millions of lost revenue due to plummeting ticket sales!"-E.H. Munro, 6/20 7:33pm




....I find it interesting that what I proposed is "more realistic" and yet you already stated that the Knicks have "zero chance" of getting Paul. How can something be more likely if there is no chance of it happening? Doesn't make sense, right. 

Besides this, you mentioned that there is "zero chance Paul gets traded" at all. I submitted to you information about a trade being possible. You respond by saying the Hornets would require a player of equal ability. I show you evidence that that never happens and that financial flexibility is the centerpiece of the deals. You respond by saying that the Hornets are going to lose to much money in the process. I respond by demonstrating every team that has followed the procedure has not only survived but rebound particularly well, which is obviously why teams make such trades in the first place. This has been the extent of our discussion and pretty much looks like the end of it.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

E.H. Munro said:


>


LOL, I looked back at the post and could see that it was an attempt on sarcasm. That was my bad for misreading.


----------



## E.H. Munro

TwinkieFoot said:


> I wasn't commenting about Maldito's trade, as much as what you were saying regarding the type of trade necessary to acquire Paul. On that note, you barely commented about Maldito's trade but rather the ability of the Knicks to land Paul. On a number of occassions, you stated the Knicks did not have the means to do so.


Because they don't. They don't have a shiny top pick in the draft and they don't really have a young cornerstone player to trade. New Jersey could probably make the deal in July once their cap clears and they had the draft rights to Favors/Cousins to use as bait. But New York really only has roleplayers to trade. 

Gallinari might one day be more than that, but not in the foreseeable future. And that would mean a pile of financial losses for the Hornets. And then they'd have to pray that they struck platinum twice in the 2011-2014 drafts. After that they'd be too mediocre and be bogged down by Munro's First Law of ****tiness. To wit, teams that slip into the lottery tend to remain in the lottery.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

E.H. Munro said:


> Because they don't. They don't have a shiny top pick in the draft and they don't really have a young cornerstone player to trade. New Jersey could probably make the deal in July once their cap clears and they had the draft rights to Favors/Cousins to use as bait. But New York really only has roleplayers to trade.
> 
> Gallinari might one day be more than that, but not in the foreseeable future. And that would mean a pile of financial losses for the Hornets. And then they'd have to pray that they struck platinum twice in the 2011-2014 drafts. After that they'd be too mediocre and be bogged down by Munro's First Law of ****tiness. To wit, teams that slip into the lottery tend to remain in the lottery.


At least we've made some progress in regard to you admitting that Paul can be dealt. I don't think there was any denying that with all the reports being published today of comments made by Shinn himself.

As much as a deal for Paul alone would require a combination of prospects, draft picks and financial flexibility, the fact that the Hornets are trying to move all those other players (Stojackovic, Posey, Okafor, Peterson, Wright) has to lower the Hornets' asking price. The market value for a star is the aforementioned asking price but when you also factor in that a team has to take on those other contracts, the incentive in making the deal is lessened. In other words, the team bringing in Paul loses a lot of the incentive in having him because they have to deal with those franchise crippling contracts. As a result, a team like the Knicks can afford not to give pick the "shiny top pick" or picks and substitute it for lesser (albiet still valuable) role players like a Danilo Gallinari, a Wilson Chandler and/or a Toney Douglas.

P.S., the purpose of the lottery is to improve the team. What gives you the impression that lottery teams remain lottery teams? How can you consistently be in a position to select the best talent's in the league and not get better especially with the CBA adding extra incentive to remain with the team that drafted you? All the top teams in the league seem to be built around a player or players obtained through the draft.


----------



## Maldito21

Did you guys hear? Chicago has a deal in place to trade away Hinrich and the 17th pick to the Wizards for practically nothing, it's a salary dump move in order for Chicago to sign two free agents to max deals! This is a big blow to the knicks in my opinion, Chicago takes a big risk and the Wizards make out like bandits just to take on salary. With Hinrich on the wizards (when the deal is official) do you think arenas is a gonner? I believe so.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

Maldito21 said:


> Did you guys hear? Chicago has a deal in place to trade away Hinrich and the 17th pick to the Wizards for practically nothing, it's a salary dump move in order for Chicago to sign two free agents to max deals! This is a big blow to the knicks in my opinion, Chicago takes a big risk and the Wizards make out like bandits just to take on salary. With Hinrich on the wizards (when the deal is official) do you think arenas is a gonner? I believe so.


My stomach dropped when I got the news. This is a major blow to our uniqueness in this years free agency. If the Bulls are able to offer two-max free agents contracts and still have Derrick Rose and Joakim Noah, they become the premier team in these free agent negiogations. What is worse, I hear is that Loul Deng may be in play for either Mikael Pietrus and Marcin Gortat or the 8th pick. Either trade is all to realistic and would be a death blow because it permits the Bulls to sign and trade Noah for Bosh or to sign and trade the 8th pick for LeBron. I'm not sure if these trades really help Washington at all and don't know why they are doing it.

Chris Paul might become our guy should the bottom fall out on our free agent plans. I'm hoping Shinn is unable to sell the team, which would put us in the fray for Chris Paul.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

...And once again the Hornets demonstrate that they are strapped for cashing by having to trade the 11th pick (Cole Aldrich) just to be able to part with Morris Peterson's contract. They gave up a lottery pick attached to a player they desperately needed just to spare money. I think this is a good sign and may develop into a plan B (Chris Paul and friends) should we strike out in free agency.


----------



## Maldito21

TwinkieFoot said:


> ...And once again the Hornets demonstrate that they are strapped for cashing by trading having to trade the 11th pick (Cole Aldrich) just to be able to part with Morris Peterson's contract. They gave up a lottery pick attached to a player they desperately needed just to spare money. I think this is a good sign and may develop into a plan B should we strike out in free agency.


Absolutely right! My thoughts exactly when I saw the trade proposal. They gave up 11th pick + Mo Pete for nothing? Really? If this isn't a sign up of trying to free up salary cap, I don't know what is.


----------



## Gotham2krazy

TwinkieFoot said:


> ...And once again the Hornets demonstrate that they are strapped for cashing by having to trade the 11th pick (Cole Aldrich) just to be able to part with Morris Peterson's contract. They gave up a lottery pick attached to a player they desperately needed just to spare money. I think this is a good sign and may develop into a plan B (Chris Paul and friends) should we strike out in free agency.


Cool so I guess we should send them Eddy Curry in return for Chris Paul, that should work.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

Gotham2krazy said:


> Cool so I guess we should send them Eddy Curry in return for Chris Paul, that should work.


Before deciding to be a (smart) ass, how about you read the threads to see what was said.


----------



## Maldito21

Gotham2krazy said:


> Cool so I guess we should send them Eddy Curry in return for Chris Paul, that should work.


I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic but Eddie Curry's contract is going to be a hot commodity come this year's trade deadline. The Hornets wouldn't trade Paul for Curry straight up but I think that Curry's contract will be the focal point if anything were to happen. If not Paul, which impact player do you think will be traded as more of a salary dump rather than necessity? A good example would be Zach Randolph, the guy can play. He's pretty much a walking double double and we just traded him for pretty much nothing to get under the cap for the 2010 free agency.


----------



## Gotham2krazy

TwinkieFoot said:


> Before deciding to be a (smart) ass, how about you read the threads to see what was said.


Before you decide to be a jerk, how about you stop acting like you can read my mind. I've never made antagonizing remarks to anyone on this forum except for trolls. And my posts are never sarcastic. Furthermore I do not want to re-read what was said because you choose to write long epics that I merely skim over for context. In addition, my posts are serious (most of the time) because I take other posts seriously. Since you theorize with somewhat valid-proof (not fully valid because the Hornets have not come out and said, "We're cutting costs right now"). Therefore, I suggested we trade for Paul using Eddy Curry since Eddy is expiring making his contract valuable and this would be one of the first moves in showing free agents that the Knicks are making the right moves in building a contending team...



Maldito21 said:


> If not Paul, which impact player do you think will be traded as more of a salary dump rather than necessity? A good example would be Zach Randolph, the guy can play. He's pretty much a walking double double and we just traded him for pretty much nothing to get under the cap for the 2010 free agency.


Are you suggesting we bring back Z-Bo? Surely the Hornets would want some sort of compensation for Paul. If we realistically do try and push for Paul I would not mind trading Chandler if that's what it takes.


----------



## Damian Necronamous

With Miami and Chicago clearing up so much room and having Wade and Rose, it's hard to imagine any of these top guys choosing to sign with the Knicks. If I had to bet, I'd put my money on them to end up picking up the scraps (Al Jefferson, Luol Deng).


----------



## Maldito21

> Are you suggesting we bring back Z-Bo? Surely the Hornets would want some sort of compensation for Paul. If we realistically do try and push for Paul I would not mind trading Chandler if that's what it takes.


No no no. That's not what i'm implying. I'm simply wondering who in the league (that's still a very serviceable nba player) will be traded more out of freeing cap space rather than necessity? Last year it was Jamison trade going to the Cavs, 2 years ago Knicks traded Z Randolph to get more cap room for the 2010 free agency frenzy. So far we have Chicago trading K. Hinrich for a bag of peanuts I think, and Miami traded Cook and a 1st rounder for something irrelevant. What else should we expect for this upcoming season???


----------



## Gotham2krazy

Maldito21 said:


> No no no. That's not what i'm implying. I'm simply wondering who in the league (that's still a very serviceable nba player) will be traded more out of freeing cap space rather than necessity? Last year it was Jamison trade going to the Cavs, 2 years ago Knicks traded Z Randolph to get more cap room for the 2010 free agency frenzy. So far we have Chicago trading K. Hinrich for a bag of peanuts I think, and Miami traded Cook and a 1st rounder for something irrelevant. What else should we expect for this upcoming season???


Al Jefferson is on the block.


----------



## Maldito21

Gotham2krazy said:


> Al Jefferson is on the block.


yea but I think that's because they prefer Kevin Love over him, plus he's been injury prone during his time in minnesota. Hey if the can package Al Jefferson and Ramon Sessions for a decent sg and a center to play along side K. Love they would be ok. I'm a big fan of C. Brewer, I think he's has potential of being an allstar in the league. If they can keep that nucleus together, Flynn, Brewer, Johnson, Love and a Gritty center, they can be a very effective team out west. Not elite but very effective.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

Gotham2krazy said:


> Before you decide to be a jerk, how about you stop acting like you can read my mind. I've never made antagonizing remarks to anyone on this forum except for trolls. And my posts are never sarcastic. Furthermore I do not want to re-read what was said because you choose to write long epics that I merely skim over for context. In addition, my posts are serious (most of the time) because I take other posts seriously. Since you theorize with somewhat valid-proof (not fully valid because the Hornets have not come out and said, "We're cutting costs right now"). Therefore, I suggested we trade for Paul using Eddy Curry since Eddy is expiring making his contract valuable and this would be one of the first moves in showing free agents that the Knicks are making the right moves in building a contending team...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting we bring back Z-Bo? Surely the Hornets would want some sort of compensation for Paul. If we realistically do try and push for Paul I would not mind trading Chandler if that's what it takes.


Then I apologize. But one-liners like that, especially in a thread 4 pages long often tends to be sarcasm.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

Damian Necronamous said:


> With Miami and Chicago clearing up so much room and having Wade and Rose, it's hard to imagine any of these top guys choosing to sign with the Knicks. If I had to bet, I'd put my money on them to end up picking up the scraps (Al Jefferson, Luol Deng).


I mentioned this on another forum but I just don't see LeBron leaving the Cavs high-and-dry. They are his hometown team and I think he would suffer a negative backlash if he did it outright. Its not like the team hasn't competed or put forth the effort to improve every year. I think it is very likely that he will be looking for a sign and trade, in which case the Knicks are at the forefront for his services.

There is no denying that the Bulls have the better players. The thing is that outside of Rose and Noah, they have little to no assets that would interest the Cavs. Theoretically, the Bulls could give up Derrick Rose but would LeBron come to the Bulls to play with Joakim Noah? I doubt that the Cavs (or Joakim Noah for that matter) will have interest due to the "Cleveland sucks," comments this past playoffs. The Heat on the other hand, have completely cleared out there roster aside from Michael Beasley (a possibility in a trade) and Dwayne Wade. The Heat obviously aren't going to move Wade and while Beasley would be a possibility, I can't see James going to another man's team.

In either case, the Knicks could offer Danilo Gallinari, Wilson Chandler, cash incentives and future draft picks in a sign and trade deal for LeBron. Such a deal doesn't really hurt the Knicks ability to compete because in either case LeBron and Chris Bosh will be our best players, with Tracy McGrady still available for the minimum as our 3rd option. Moreover, LeBron avoids the perception of him jumping on the coattails of an already competitive team. Realistically, a trio of LeBron-Bosh-McGrady is actually better than the '08 Celtics that won the title.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

I think these trades are realistically available as a plan C if we miss out on LeBron. They destroy whatever cap space we had available (with especially awful contracts) but gives us a legitimate chance to jump start our rebuilding process and make the playoffs.

*1.) David Lee (sign and trade) and Bill Walker for Elton Brand and the draft rights to Evan Turner.*

_The 76ers were rumored to have that 2nd pick available if a team was willing to take on Elton Brand's contract. With Doug Collins as coach, I doubt they do so without getting value back- enter David Lee and Bill Walker. The 76ers could actually improve upon last year and still have the benefit of ditching Brand's contract. The Knicks are stuck with it but at least we get a guy that could be a legitimate star in Evan Turner, which we can not say about our current roster._

*2.) Eddy Curry for Richard Hamilton and the draft rights to Greg Monroe.*
_Monroe is a huge gamble but is actually one of a handful of centers athletic enough and skilled enough to fit our offense and play defense on the other end of the floor. As much as Hamilton is vastly overpaid (the reason why he's on the block), he is also an excellent fit for our roster and has experience being key to a playoff team. We could use his leadership._

*3.) $14 million trade exception and Toney Douglas for Al Jefferson and Ramon Sessions.*
_For some ridiculous reason, the Wolves are trying to give up Al Jefferson for little more than an expirer. The Knicks can do them one better and assume his contract outright. They would also get Toney Douglas who is an ideal fit for triangle offense in exchange for Ramon Sessions who is a poor fit. Just last offseason, we were in hot pursuit of Sessions before having to cede our bid because of the financial commitment that would have impeded our aims for this offseason. I think that he'd work great with Al Jefferson, who I think could fill the same role that Zach Randolph did when D'Antoni first got here._

4.) Sign Raymond Felton for the $6 or so million we'd have left available.

*STARTERS*
Raymond Felton...PG
Richard Hamilton...SG
Danilo Gallinari...SF
Al Jefferson...PF
Greg Monroe...C
*ROTATION*
Ramon Sessions...PG
Evan Turner...SG
Wilson Chandler...F
Elton Brand...F/C
*BENCH*
?


----------



## Gotham2krazy

TwinkieFoot said:


> I think these trades are realistically available as a plan C if we miss out on LeBron. They destroy whatever cap space we had available (with especially awful contracts) but gives us a legitimate chance to jump start our rebuilding process and make the playoffs.
> 
> *1.) David Lee (sign and trade) and Bill Walker for Elton Brand and the draft rights to Evan Turner.*
> 
> _The 76ers were rumored to have that 2nd pick available if a team was willing to take on Elton Brand's contract. With Doug Collins as coach, I doubt they do so without getting value back- enter David Lee and Bill Walker. The 76ers could actually improve upon last year and still have the benefit of ditching Brand's contract. The Knicks are stuck with it but at least we get a guy that could be a legitimate star in Evan Turner, which we can not say about our current roster._
> 
> *2.) Eddy Curry for Richard Hamilton and the draft rights to Greg Monroe.*
> _Monroe is a huge gamble but is actually one of a handful of centers athletic enough and skilled enough to fit our offense and play defense on the other end of the floor. As much as Hamilton is vastly overpaid (the reason why he's on the block), he is also an excellent fit for our roster and has experience being key to a playoff team. We could use his leadership._
> 
> *3.) $14 million trade exception and Toney Douglas for Al Jefferson and Ramon Sessions.*
> _For some ridiculous reason, the Wolves are trying to give up Al Jefferson for little more than an expirer. The Knicks can do them one better and assume his contract outright. They would also get Toney Douglas who is an ideal fit for triangle offense in exchange for Ramon Sessions who is a poor fit. Just last offseason, we were in hot pursuit of Sessions before having to cede our bid because of the financial commitment that would have impeded our aims for this offseason. I think that he'd work great with Al Jefferson, who I think could fill the same role that Zach Randolph did when D'Antoni first got here._
> 
> 4.) Sign Raymond Felton for the $6 or so million we'd have left available.
> 
> *STARTERS*
> Raymond Felton...PG
> Richard Hamilton...SG
> Danilo Gallinari...SF
> Al Jefferson...PF
> Greg Monroe...C
> *ROTATION*
> Ramon Sessions...PG
> Evan Turner...SG
> Wilson Chandler...F
> Elton Brand...F/C
> *BENCH*
> ?


That's a very interesting team, but not really one I would like to see. With the offseason shaping the way it is currently, I feel like the Knicks have opportunities to get other players.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

Gotham2krazy said:


> That's a very interesting team, but not really one I would like to see. With the offseason shaping the way it is currently, I feel like the Knicks have opportunities to get other players.


How do you read the offseason going? I've developed a LeBron-or-bust mentality the past few months and feel anyone else would be largely irrelevant. That obviously isn't the case but to have gone through this awful decade of basketball, I felt (and still do) that LeBron was (is) going to save the day. Amare and Johnson don't do that IMO but, then again, there really aren't any other better opportunities. To sign either one or both of those guys is us basically settling for 2nd best because this next decade is going to be dominated by LeBron ala Jordan in the 90's. I just can't see anyone beating this guy (LeBron).


----------



## seifer0406

TwinkieFoot said:


> I think these trades are realistically available as a plan C if we miss out on LeBron. They destroy whatever cap space we had available (with especially awful contracts) but gives us a legitimate chance to jump start our rebuilding process and make the playoffs.
> 
> *1.) David Lee (sign and trade) and Bill Walker for Elton Brand and the draft rights to Evan Turner.*
> 
> _The 76ers were rumored to have that 2nd pick available if a team was willing to take on Elton Brand's contract. With Doug Collins as coach, I doubt they do so without getting value back- enter David Lee and Bill Walker. The 76ers could actually improve upon last year and still have the benefit of ditching Brand's contract. The Knicks are stuck with it but at least we get a guy that could be a legitimate star in Evan Turner, which we can not say about our current roster._
> 
> *2.) Eddy Curry for Richard Hamilton and the draft rights to Greg Monroe.*
> _Monroe is a huge gamble but is actually one of a handful of centers athletic enough and skilled enough to fit our offense and play defense on the other end of the floor. As much as Hamilton is vastly overpaid (the reason why he's on the block), he is also an excellent fit for our roster and has experience being key to a playoff team. We could use his leadership._
> 
> *3.) $14 million trade exception and Toney Douglas for Al Jefferson and Ramon Sessions.*
> _For some ridiculous reason, the Wolves are trying to give up Al Jefferson for little more than an expirer. The Knicks can do them one better and assume his contract outright. They would also get Toney Douglas who is an ideal fit for triangle offense in exchange for Ramon Sessions who is a poor fit. Just last offseason, we were in hot pursuit of Sessions before having to cede our bid because of the financial commitment that would have impeded our aims for this offseason. I think that he'd work great with Al Jefferson, who I think could fill the same role that Zach Randolph did when D'Antoni first got here._
> 
> 4.) Sign Raymond Felton for the $6 or so million we'd have left available.
> 
> *STARTERS*
> Raymond Felton...PG
> Richard Hamilton...SG
> Danilo Gallinari...SF
> Al Jefferson...PF
> Greg Monroe...C
> *ROTATION*
> Ramon Sessions...PG
> Evan Turner...SG
> Wilson Chandler...F
> Elton Brand...F/C
> *BENCH*
> ?


Even if all these crazy trades end up happening the end result is a team that has no championship or deep playoff run potential. I don't know how much money these guys are making but I'd figure it would be close to the cap.

I doubt the Knicks would get Lebron and it would be a shame if they just settle for Johnson and Amare. Both guys imo aren't capable of being the focal point of a contender and the it would just bring a string of 1st/2nd round exits for NY in the foreseeable future. The Knicks have been terrible for too long and the FO is forced to get whichever FA that is out there even if it means that the team have no chance to win a championship with those players.


----------



## Maldito21

I beg the differ, I think Johnson/Stoudamire can thrive in the east together. Imagine the knicks putting Johnson/Chandler/Gallo/Lee/Stoudamire on the floor at the same time? Gallo and Johnson hanging out around the 3pt line, Chandler a slasher when he puts the ball on the floor, Stoudimire a beast around the paint and Lee cleaning up the mess. Not a bad squad at all imo. I rather not have Johnson as the primary ball handler but he's not that bad. I still don't think D'Antoni really wants Johnson or Stoudimire. I think if they go after them, they will not be offer max contracts by the knicks. The Knicks will only offer max contracts to L James, D Wade and C Bosh. Johnson and Stoudimire will be offered close to max though. Again it just my opinion, i'm not basing it on any factual information.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

seifer0406 said:


> Even if all these crazy trades end up happening the end result is a team that has no championship or deep playoff run potential. I don't know how much money these guys are making but I'd figure it would be close to the cap.
> 
> I doubt the Knicks would get Lebron and it would be a shame if they just settle for Johnson and Amare. Both guys imo aren't capable of being the focal point of a contender and the it would just bring a string of 1st/2nd round exits for NY in the foreseeable future. The Knicks have been terrible for too long and the FO is forced to get whichever FA that is out there even if it means that the team have no chance to win a championship with those players.


What do you suggest we do then? Clearly your not in favor of the 2nd tier all-stars available and apparently are not interested in rebuilding with younger prospects. We don't have an option about bringing in players. There will only be 5 under contract for next season and only 2 beyond this upcoming season. 

I personally like the idea of bringing in prospects (Evan Turner, Greg Monroe, Al Jefferson, etc.) because I view the other free agents as dead ends. Any team that gets LeBron will be the '90Bulls. We might as well plan on beating him in the future is my position (assuming C.Paul isn't made available). We assume bad contracts in the process but no one is giving up a lottery pick just to make the Knicks better and it's not like we don't have vacant spots to make the most of those bad contracts.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

Maldito21 said:


> I beg the differ, I think Johnson/Stoudamire can thrive in the east together. Imagine the knicks putting Johnson/Chandler/Gallo/Lee/Stoudamire on the floor at the same time? Gallo and Johnson hanging out around the 3pt line, Chandler a slasher when he puts the ball on the floor, Stoudimire a beast around the paint and Lee cleaning up the mess. Not a bad squad at all imo. I rather not have Johnson as the primary ball handler but he's not that bad. I still don't think D'Antoni really wants Johnson or Stoudimire. I think if they go after them, they will not be offer max contracts by the knicks. The Knicks will only offer max contracts to L James, D Wade and C Bosh. Johnson and Stoudimire will be offered close to max though. Again it just my opinion, i'm not basing it on any factual information.


It would be a good team, no doubt, but it won't be getting much further than the 2nd round. I envision a team like that would be this decade's Atlanta Hawks. Good enough to compete in the playoffs but not good enough to ever be taken seriously. Add to the fact that: (1) Johnson is 29years old and a dud in the playoffs and (2) Amare Stoudamire might be Kenyon Martin's little brother, and I find it difficult to be optimistic.


----------



## Damian Necronamous

TwinkieFoot said:


> I think these trades are realistically available as a plan C if we miss out on LeBron. They destroy whatever cap space we had available (with especially awful contracts) but gives us a legitimate chance to jump start our rebuilding process and make the playoffs.
> 
> *1.) David Lee (sign and trade) and Bill Walker for Elton Brand and the draft rights to Evan Turner.*
> 
> _The 76ers were rumored to have that 2nd pick available if a team was willing to take on Elton Brand's contract. With Doug Collins as coach, I doubt they do so without getting value back- enter David Lee and Bill Walker. The 76ers could actually improve upon last year and still have the benefit of ditching Brand's contract. The Knicks are stuck with it but at least we get a guy that could be a legitimate star in Evan Turner, which we can not say about our current roster._
> 
> *2.) Eddy Curry for Richard Hamilton and the draft rights to Greg Monroe.*
> _Monroe is a huge gamble but is actually one of a handful of centers athletic enough and skilled enough to fit our offense and play defense on the other end of the floor. As much as Hamilton is vastly overpaid (the reason why he's on the block), he is also an excellent fit for our roster and has experience being key to a playoff team. We could use his leadership._
> 
> *3.) $14 million trade exception and Toney Douglas for Al Jefferson and Ramon Sessions.*
> _For some ridiculous reason, the Wolves are trying to give up Al Jefferson for little more than an expirer. The Knicks can do them one better and assume his contract outright. They would also get Toney Douglas who is an ideal fit for triangle offense in exchange for Ramon Sessions who is a poor fit. Just last offseason, we were in hot pursuit of Sessions before having to cede our bid because of the financial commitment that would have impeded our aims for this offseason. I think that he'd work great with Al Jefferson, who I think could fill the same role that Zach Randolph did when D'Antoni first got here._
> 
> 4.) Sign Raymond Felton for the $6 or so million we'd have left available.


The first two options are completely ridiculous. There is no way in a frozen-over hell that either the 76ers or Pistons would do either of those deals. 

The 76ers and Doug Collins don't want to get rid of Brand so much that they'd deal him with their 2nd overall pick in exchange for David Lee. The Pistons sure as hell don't want to get rid of Hamilton so badly that they'd trade him with Monroe (their first good big since '04 Sheed) in exchange for Eddy Freakin' Curry. There are plenty of better deals than that stinker out there for Detroit. Even if there weren't, they would just hold onto him.

Yeah, they could get Felton for $6m per year, and yeah, they could get Al Jefferson for basically nothing. The other two trades are crazy pipe-dreams.


----------



## seifer0406

TwinkieFoot said:


> What do you suggest we do then? Clearly your not in favor of the 2nd tier all-stars available and apparently are not interested in rebuilding with younger prospects. We don't have an option about bringing in players. There will only be 5 under contract for next season and only 2 beyond this upcoming season.
> 
> I personally like the idea of bringing in prospects (Evan Turner, Greg Monroe, Al Jefferson, etc.) because I view the other free agents as dead ends. Any team that gets LeBron will be the '90Bulls. We might as well plan on beating him in the future is my position (assuming C.Paul isn't made available). We assume bad contracts in the process but no one is giving up a lottery pick just to make the Knicks better and it's not like we don't have vacant spots to make the most of those bad contracts.


The reality is there is pretty much nothing that the Knicks can do if they don't get Lebron. They traded their 1st rounders for the next 2 years (2011 the Rockets can swap picks) so even continue losing isn't an option. The FO will end up getting 2nd tier stars just to keep the fans satisfied but for the fans that are looking for the Knicks to win it all rather than being "Not terrible" a Knicks squad without Lebron just doesn't have much to offer.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

Damian Necronamous said:


> The first two options are completely ridiculous. There is no way in a frozen-over hell that either the 76ers or Pistons would do either of those deals.
> 
> The 76ers and Doug Collins don't want to get rid of Brand so much that they'd deal him with their 2nd overall pick in exchange for David Lee. The Pistons sure as hell don't want to get rid of Hamilton so badly that they'd trade him with Monroe (their first good big since '04 Sheed) in exchange for Eddy Freakin' Curry. There are plenty of better deals than that stinker out there for Detroit. Even if there weren't, they would just hold onto him.
> 
> Yeah, they could get Felton for $6m per year, and yeah, they could get Al Jefferson for basically nothing. The other two trades are crazy pipe-dreams.


Could you stop with this "frozen-over hell" nonsense. People like you have continued with this mentality despite the league proving anyone and anything can be traded for the right price. It was impossible to trade Zach Randolph for value. It was impossible to trade Jamal Crawford for value. It was impossible to trade Jared Jefferies for value. Etc, etc, etc. And yet, all these things happen. I think history has shown that every player has a price, you just have to be willing to submit to their team's demand.

The fact of the matter is that my proposal was actually generated from rumors circulating about the Sixers willing to move Elton Brand with the 2nd pick (which turned out to be Evan Turner) for cap space. It makes sense because no team would take on Elton Brand without a huge incentive and because Turner and Igoudala play the same position/role. The rumors could be wrong but it was carried by so many newspapers and journalists that I would imagine there is a tinge of truth in them. 

The Hamilton deal I completely made up but he is on the block and I would imagine that the Pistons would need to add incentives for a team to take his contract that pays him $12.45 million per season over the next 3 seasons. Add to the fact that Hamilton is a malcontent, unwilling to come off the bench despite his declined play and I think it is likely that he'll be moved. The Pistons are also for sale, which is a tell-tale sign that contracts will be dumped. I don't think you give huge contracts to "win-now" players like Gordon and Villaneuva only to develop a rookie. 

I'll admit that the Pistons might reject the deal because Joe Dumars has been wildly out of touch with his team and their true value. This guy reportedly passed on Carmelo Anthony via trade a few seasons back. I just think that the market for Hamilton is low for his production and contract and would need a pretty meaningful incentive to move him.


----------



## TwinkieFoot

seifer0406 said:


> The reality is there is pretty much nothing that the Knicks can do if they don't get Lebron. They traded their 1st rounders for the next 2 years (2011 the Rockets can swap picks) so even continue losing isn't an option. The FO will end up getting 2nd tier stars just to keep the fans satisfied but for the fans that are looking for the Knicks to win it all rather than being "Not terrible" a Knicks squad without Lebron just doesn't have much to offer.


So do we basically dismember the franchise? Highly doubtful, which means that you need to do something. I only see 4 options available: (1)bring in/draft young players, (2) sign 2010 fa's, (3) sign 2011 fa's and beyond or (4) a combination of all 3. We got to do something.


----------



## Damian Necronamous

TwinkieFoot said:


> It was impossible to trade Zach Randolph for value. It was impossible to trade Jamal Crawford for value. It was impossible to trade Jared Jefferies for value. And yet, all these things happen.


LOL...WHAT?! None of those things happened.

You gave Randolph away for shorter contracts. You gave Jamal Crawford away for shorter contracts, and you had to include Jordan Hill and a future 1st Rd pick just to give away Jeffries.

You didn't get value for any of them. You gave them away in exchange for cap space.

Neither of those trades you mentioned have any chance of happening. If you disagree with me, just ask others. David Lee isn't getting you Evan Turner and Elton Brand, and Eddy Curry isn't getting you Richard Hamilton and Greg Monroe. Sorry. Someone had to break it to you.

The 76ers want to lose Brand, but not enough to give away their potential franchise player. Richard Hamilton still has some value around the league. They don't need to give away maybe a Top 5 player in this draft to trade Rip for an expiring. If they wanted to trade Rip for an expiring, they can do just that in a month or so (w/o including Monroe).


----------



## TwinkieFoot

Damian Necronamous said:


> LOL...WHAT?! None of those things happened.
> 
> You gave Randolph away for shorter contracts. You gave Jamal Crawford away for shorter contracts, and you had to include Jordan Hill and a future 1st Rd pick just to give away Jeffries.
> 
> You didn't get value for any of them. You gave them away in exchange for cap space.
> 
> Neither of those trades you mentioned have any chance of happening. If you disagree with me, just ask others. David Lee isn't getting you Evan Turner and Elton Brand, and Eddy Curry isn't getting you Richard Hamilton and Greg Monroe. Sorry. Someone had to break it to you.
> 
> The 76ers want to lose Brand, but not enough to give away their potential franchise player. Richard Hamilton still has some value around the league. They don't need to give away maybe a Top 5 player in this draft to trade Rip for an expiring. If they wanted to trade Rip for an expiring, they can do just that in a month or so (w/o including Monroe).


Since when has cap space not been value? Didn't the Hornets give up the 11th pick and Mo Pete for cap space? Count the teams who traded talented players for financial flexibility in this offseason. Nearly the entire league is trying to position themselves at a lower payroll, which means that those "shorter contracts" certainly carry a great deal of value in trades.

Funny, despite the countless rumors generated from credible sources from many of the league's premier journalist, we're suppose to take your word and your word alone that these trades were: (1)not discussed and (2) these players are not on the block for cap space despite a league-wide trend of cutting payroll. Seems a tad bit nonsensical.


----------



## Gotham2krazy

Personally, I'd like to see a team like this (no LeBron, Wade, or Bosh):

PG- Chris Paul (If Hornets are serious about ridding him)
SG- John Salmons
SF- Wilson Chandler (If he's still here)
PF- David Lee
C- Amare Stoudemire

Bench:
Toney Douglas 
Amir Johnson
Danilo Gallinari
Bill Walker
Channing Frye 
Earl Barron 
Ronnie Brewer
T-Mac
Randy Foye


----------

