# Porland Wanted Frye or Lee For Ratliff...Zeke Said No Way!



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

> Isiah Thomas spent the last few minutes before yesterday's 3 p.m. trade deadline on the phone with the Portland Trail Blazers, trying to present Larry Brown with shot-blocker Theo Ratliff, just one last piece to add to the Steve Francis deal.
> 
> But Portland's insistence on getting Channing Frye in the trade -- they were also offering a package with Darius Miles and Steve Blake -- ended any chance of a deal, and so another busy trading season came to a conclusion.


http://www.nj.com/sports/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/1140760020266090.xml&coll=1

Good job on that one Zeke!


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

> Coach Larry Brown has wanted a shot-blocker, but the Ratliff deal fell through yesterday because of Portland's insistence on rookie David Lee as part of the package. "You don't make change for the sake of making change," Brown said. "We won't move a [young] guy to satisfy one of our short-term needs. We could've gotten a great defensive rebounder, shot-blocker, but it's what you have to give up."


http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/62359.htm


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

true that, and anyone wise enough would see that our young guns have a CALIBER of talent in them, frye's definetly going to improve next year as well as lee and nate, they are our future and are not even remotely close to being valued on the same page as theo ratliff because he's just too damn old.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Gotham2krazy said:


> true that, and anyone wise enough would see that our young guns have a CALIBER of talent in them, frye's definetly going to improve next year as well as lee and nate, they are our future and are not even remotely close to being valued on the same page as theo ratliff because he's just too damn old.



people act like ratliff is some sort of fossil .

he is 32 years old.

people werent talking that way about kurt thomas last season who is currently 33 and will be 34 in oct.


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> people act like ratliff is some sort of fossil .
> 
> he is 32 years old.
> 
> people werent talking that way about kurt thomas last season who is currently 33 and will be 34 in oct.


true ratliff isn't THAT old, but i mean KT wasn't old either, but i guess that's the reason IT dealt him away because he drafted channing, but yeah i loved kurt thomas playing for the knicks, but hey steph had an ego KT couldn't deal with and now he's in a happier place with the mvp.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> people act like ratliff is some sort of fossil .
> 
> he is 32 years old.
> 
> people werent talking that way about kurt thomas last season who is currently 33 and will be 34 in oct.


Grinch..you wanted Ratliff..and if so did you want to give up one of our rookies to get him? :raised_ey


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

i wouldn't have.


----------



## knicksfan (Jan 4, 2003)

NO THANK YOU on Rats. What exactly would they have wanted ALONG with the rookies? The only way I would trade for Rats if I was us is if the deal was along these lines


Mo Taylor
Malik Rose
Jerome James
David Lee


FOR 

Theo Ratliff
Travis Outlaw
Viktor Khryapa 

NOW KITTY TELL ME YOU DON'T LIKE THAT


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

what's so good about travis outlaw's game?


----------



## KnickerBockers03 (Nov 6, 2005)

Gotham2krazy said:


> true ratliff isn't THAT old, but i mean KT wasn't old either, but i guess that's the reason IT dealt him away because he drafted channing, but yeah i loved kurt thomas playing for the knicks, but hey steph had an ego KT couldn't deal with and now he's in a happier place with the mvp.


i miss kurt !!! im still mad at isiah for tradign him :upset:


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

that's why we drafted channing.


----------



## SI Metman (Jan 30, 2004)

Of course Isiah could have had Ratliff and Miles on Wednesday using the Penny contract. Instead, he got us another player that we didn't need in Francis.


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

yah for reals. i think i would've rather sent malik, jc, jerome for francis and travis deiner or something and then sent penny for d-miles and theo ratliff instead.


----------



## PaCeRhOLiC (May 22, 2005)

Gotham2krazy said:


> that's why we drafted channing.



Of course...




*Go PaCeRs!!!!*


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

where've you been pacerholic???!?! this forum needs you more often.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

he also got offered darius miles theo ratliff for penny and lee.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

knicksfan said:


> NO THANK YOU on Rats. What exactly would they have wanted ALONG with the rookies? The only way I would trade for Rats if I was us is if the deal was along these lines
> 
> 
> Mo Taylor
> ...


Of course Kitty will like it...u send all your junk contracts to us for a shotblocker (which you clearly lack) and two good prospects who are both just beginning to blossom. 

Granted I agree us asking for Frye may have been over the top but Lee wasn't IMO.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Kitty said:


> Grinch..you wanted Ratliff..and if so did you want to give up one of our rookies to get him? :raised_ey



truthfully i would have traded penny for anyone that could at least be in the rotation ...so i would have done it especially when you are getting more than ratliff ...you are also getting daruis miles.

if no miles i would not really want theo , i dont see him as a significant upgrade over jakie butler or mo T ....now steve francis on the other hand is a huge upgrade at the 2 over nate or Q.

all things being considered if it only cost lee on top of penny i would have done it too, but i prefer francis.

i like lee but lets be honest here do you see him being an all star?

i see him being basically A.C. green a 13 pt 9-10 reb guy with good defense in lets say 32 min. who never really has a position , but can do both well enough to be a standout off the bench but a weak starter because he is too small to be a reg. 4 and not fluid enough to be a legit 3.

so the question how much do you value a guy who is at best an avg. starter down the line?

why would hold onto him when the other team is offering a better than avg. sf (17 points a game very good defense. is better than avg to me.) plus a guy who would instantly be your back up center.


----------



## RedsDrunk (Oct 31, 2005)

knicksfan said:


> NO THANK YOU on Rats. What exactly would they have wanted ALONG with the rookies? The only way I would trade for Rats if I was us is if the deal was along these lines







Your Sig is wrong my boy...The song is "keep ya head up"-Tupac...just wanted to give you a heads up on that.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

also nate is talented but until he can play pg on offense or a very big pg is aquired by the knicks he should never start , he is best suited for a spark off the bench role.

and under no circumstances would i trade frye in these deals he should be a star...with his J and size at the 4 he might be something close to pat ewing at power forward, at a strong 6'11 there should be very few matchups he cant exploit on offense where he can muscle the quick 4's and bomb J's on the bigger ones...i also expect him to get 3 point range within the next couple of years .

i dont know if i see duncan or garnett but he should be a 20+ point a game guy with decent rebounding and defense


----------

