# pros and pros of trade (ok and cons)



## inapparent (Jul 2, 2003)

Like any rabid fan I'm greedy and so, almost the next second after the exhilaration at landing Marbury I was wincing about the 2 first rounders IN ADDITION to Vujanic, but then, then I really allowed myself to FEEL that Isiah got us out from under Eisley's bloated deal. That's pretty sweet. Yes we're still in cap hell, an even deeper plane of it, but I'd rather have Penny and be on the hook for Penny's 2 years than Howard's 3 years of penetrationlessness. Also, given the recent win surge and how much better we MIGHT be now with Marbury, it's possible that the first rounder from this year would even be out of the lottery, in which case it's easier to imagine losing it. I'd like to know what other deals/retoolings people think should happen given this reconfiguration (i.e. do we need to get draft picks back through other trades after giving up 2 of them, etc.). Personally, I think we have to hold onto FWill unless somethimg more spectacular than Darius "Dunks equal poetential" Miles comes along.


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>inapparent</b>!
> Like any rabid fan I'm greedy and so, almost the next second after the exhilaration at landing Marbury I was wincing about the 2 first rounders IN ADDITION to Vujanic, but then, then I really allowed myself to FEEL that Isiah got us out from under Eisley's bloated deal. That's pretty sweet. Yes we're still in cap hell, an even deeper plane of it, but I'd rather have Penny and be on the hook for Penny's 2 years than Howard's 3 years of penetrationlessness. Also, given the recent win surge and how much better we MIGHT be now with Marbury, it's possible that the first rounder from this year would even be out of the lottery, in which case it's easier to imagine losing it. I'd like to know what other deals/retoolings people think should happen given this reconfiguration (i.e. do we need to get draft picks back through other trades after giving up 2 of them, etc.). Personally, I think we have to hold onto FWill unless somethimg more spectacular than Darius "Dunks equal poetential" Miles comes along.


what do you think now that lampe is part of it too?


----------



## inapparent (Jul 2, 2003)

*follow up*

now lampe is part of the deal AND Hardaway's deal has 3 years left not 2--in this light I'm still in favor of the trade but less wild about it, depending on whether the 2 picks are still included--since Lampe should have been a 1st rounder and Vujanic would be a lottery pick now, in effect we're giving up 4 1st rounders in addition to the veterans--i at leasrt think we should be getting the sun's pick back in the deal, or at least a future one. i guess we should all calm down and wait for final terms of the deal.


----------



## Dr. J (Jul 12, 2002)

The Knicks are giving up too much in potential. Both Lampe and Vujanic and 2 first rounders. 

I would have tried to keep one of the first rounders or Lampe.


----------



## inapparent (Jul 2, 2003)

*rumorstorm*

I don't trust this Sheed talk at all, but I will say this: If, at the end of the day, we have Marbury AND Sheed then I don't care who and what we gave up, including FWill, and Isiah Thomas will have utterly transformed the team, given fans hope and excitement, the first penetrating PG since out-of-control early Strickland, Marbury's in his proper environment at last, they could resign Sheed easily and everybody's young enough to compete for a few more years except Mutumbo who isn't a terrestrial anyway.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

Hardaway's contract has two years left.


----------



## inapparent (Jul 2, 2003)

ESPN says 3 in their article, the dailynews said 2--i'll trust you. I'd rather see Harrington added than Miles at this point. What do people want to see as moves or nonmoves from hereon out, assuming the deal is what it looks like it is (i.e. it includes Lampe)


----------



## Dr. J (Jul 12, 2002)

It is 2 more after this year, 3 including this year.

He also has a player option next year that he would be a fool to use.


----------



## rynobot (Oct 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dr. J</b>!
> It is 2 more after this year, 3 including this year.
> 
> He also has a player option next year that he would be a fool to use.


You meen a fool not to use his player option right?


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

> The Knicks are giving up too much in potential. Both Lampe and Vujanic and 2 first rounders


Would you rather have guys who could possibly be very good, or a player that is already proven to be good in Stephon?

I can see what you're talking about, because every team needs youth, but the Knicks really don't need any young players right now.


----------



## JaeMurda (Mar 28, 2003)

I dont know why people are sweating losing vujanic or both him and lampe has anyone even seen this guys play a nba game who know if they can even ball in the nba. Who knows how long vujanic is gonna keep playing his games forget them guys marbury is the real deal we know what he can do. With lampe and vujanic we are just hoping these guys will be able to ball.


----------



## inapparent (Jul 2, 2003)

i think people are dubious bc both Lampe and Vujanic are lottery level talents, only one of which would need to pan out, and neither is, or would be, expensive. AND, 2 other 1st rounders that could be lottery or mid-round are part of the deal, in a moment in draft history when, bc of highschoolers and internationals, true steals and sleepers are available all the way into the 2nd round now. In effect, Marbury and ridding ourselves of Eisely's contract comes with a pricetag of FOUR young potentially good to great players, as well as even deeper cap problems (although this is less of an issue bc the Knicks never intend to get out from under). It's not great, but I come down mildly in favor given the alternatives (i.e. management just will never wait for talent to develop). I think Thomas did the best he could and had to allow himself to be slightly robbed in order to make a dramatic change which, to be fair, does balance out the roster better. Give me a sweet SF and a draft pick through subsequent trades and I'll be more than satisifed. Opinions?


----------



## ill subliminal (Apr 3, 2003)

I think Isiah got a little played. The Suns knew how desperate he is to make some changes. I bet if he would have bargained really hard, he could have kept one of the 1st rounders.


----------



## inapparent (Jul 2, 2003)

you're probably right, and he might have been able to hold out for sweetney instead of lamp if he couldn't keep a 1st rounder. this is one of those trades that really can't be judged for years. we have to see how Marbury jells in NYC and how immideiately he pays dividends. we have to see what Lampe becomes and Vujanic, if he ever comes over, as well where the Knicks draft picks end up falling and whom they turn into. In 3 years we'll be able to rule definitively. but I'd rather have Thomas gambling on a 26yr old allstar point guard than holding th 7-10th pick in the draft 2 years in a row (Lampe and Milos hurt me more I admit).


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

Don't forget that 1st rounders have a set value to them when it comes to trades. If you took out a 1st rounder it might not work capwise.


----------

