# Mock Draft Day Deal...



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Been thinking of ideas of how to improve the Knicks and thought of an interesting scenario. I think we could definately pursue a 3 way trade involving the Cavs and Seattle that could help get the ball moving for our rebuilding plan/retooling plan.

*Knicks Trade:*
Zach Randolph...PF
Malik Rose...F/C
Quentin Richardson...G/F
Jared Jefferies...F/C
$3 million cash

*Knicks Recieve:*
Ben Wallace...F/C
Joe Smith...PF
Wally Szerzbiak...SF
Damon Jones...PG
*(maybe no.24th pick)

*Cavs Trade:*
Ben Wallace...C
Joe Smith...PF
Wally Szerzbiak...SF
Damon Jones...PG
19th pick or a future first

*Cavs Recieve:*
Zach Randolph...PF
Earl Watson...PG
Quentin Richardson...G/F
Jared Jefferies...F
$3 million cash

*Sonics Trade:*
Earl Watson...PG
*(maybe trade the 24th pick)

*Sonics Recieve:*
Malik Rose...PF
19th pick or a future first 
from CLE

Such a trade works out in favor of all the teams involved. The Cavs get a solid young 20-10 PF in Zach Randolph. He has not won as a lead player but neither did Pau Gasol and you see what he means to the Lakers while now being 2nd fiddle. They also get some solid role players (Quentin Richardson and Jared Jefferies) that are as effective if not more effective than the players they are shipping out (Damon Jones and Wally Szerzbiak). I think another big plus of this trade is Earl Watson. The Cavs have had interest in him for years and rightfully so. He'd fulfill a lot of their PG issues they have had the past several years.

The Knicks gain some financial flexibility which is what they are looking for while trying to rebuild. Guys like Ben Wallace and Joe Smith certainly have reached the ends of their careers but could also offer a lot to this franchise as elderstatesmen; serving as role models for the hard work, knowledge and dedication necessary to win big. Damon Jones as a player is not worth the tiolet paper he uses to whip his butt with but has a great personality. His humor could bring a team together especially given the huge personnel turnover that is likely to occur the next few years; chemistry and cohesiveness are the first step to winning. He can at least shoot and play spot defense, making him servicable on the court and useful next to Curry.

The Sonics make the move because it lands them a draft pick. They and Watson have had a tumultous relationship so I think their will be no love lost from them going their own ways. This move allows them to do so by getting rid of his contract, bringing in a guy who is a solid role model for a year and gaining a draft pick which they value heavily. The Sonics currently have 12 guys under contract- 13 if you consider Galeable returning a done deal- which may make them reluctant to take on another guaranteed contract. If it's possible, I'd be willing to send some cash their way for them to keep no.19 and for us to take no.24 off their hands. No.24 would definately be on an express trip to Utah because I am seriously worried about 2010 and what it might mean if we do not satisfy the Marbury trade for 2004; it would be the Eddy Curry trade with the 2006 draft all over again.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Another move I'd look into making involves the Hawks. They have several two way players that could help the Knicks in a big way; Josh Childress and Smith top that list because their preceived availability. I especially like Al Horford and even though he is not on the block, do you think we could get him? Does a package of Jamal Crawford, David Lee, Nate Robinson and Ronaldo Balkman for Josh Childress (sign and trade), Al Horford and Salim Stoudamire sound fair? David Lee can produce on the same level as an Al Horford and Jamal Crawford is one of the best 6th men in the league, with Robinson and Balkman rounding out the bench. We certainly would be giving up a lot but if it's any trade I'd overpay for it would be for a young big man that could start and compliment Eddy Curry. Childress could very well start at the 3 on our team.

I'd also look to draft Anthony Randolph with the 6th pick. If he goes before our pick, I'd look into trying to build a package involving that 6th pick and a Wilson Chandler/Randolph Morris type to get him. I like what he could potentially do at the 3 spot being something of a Lamar Odom/Tayshaun Prince hybrid (which nbadraft.net got to the "T"). His length and offensive ability covers a lot of the worts on Eddy Curry, which allow for us to build a very good team around him. I don't expect Randolph to hit the floor running but he would certainly have enough time to develop behind a capable starter in my eyes in Josh Childress.


----------



## silverpaw1786 (Mar 11, 2004)

No. Horford is untouchable so far as the knicks are concerned. Lee and Balkman for Childress and Stoudemire might work though.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

..


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Mr Blue...*

You might want to take a look at those salaries again. #1, Zach can give the Cavs a superb lowpost player and he would HAVE to defer to LJ. #2, Roses contract is not all that long. #3, JJ is not garbage. Overpaid? yes, but not so much its ridiculous. #4, Seattle could use some veteran leadership from a class guy.

One first thought was its a bad trade, but it actually is not so bad.

Twinkie, I have not heard anything aboout Childress being available and I don't know what we would do with him. Smith is intriguing because paired with Lee, they would dominate the glass and he would fix defensive deficiencies. Only available if the Hawks decide to go with Williams. Horford is going nowhere. Randolph is considered to be the biggest risk/reward player in the draft. I just don't want to gamble on another wasted pick since we only have one for the next 2 years.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

I know for a fact that Coach Brown wants to add a veteran in the offseason, but I don't think they want Zach Randolph.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Blue Magic said:


> Lol @ those trades.
> 
> For starters, Why on earth would the Cavs give you their pick AND take on QRich & Jefferies Monster long term salaries, while also taking that "cancer", Zach Randolph, off your hands too.......yet they dont even get your #6 pick and you guys get the #24 in return...?? Lol, and Seattle just decides to take on Malik's contract, why? to be a role model who is getting paid how much, for how long..? Um, good luck with that one. That would be a terrible trade for both the Cavs and the Sonics and is EXTREMELY one sided. Then you have Atl, who after years of dabbling with the lottery has finally got something positive going for them, to just trade away last years promising young #3 pick for abunch of guys who are proven chuckers and David Lee who is nothing more than a decorated garbage man?? How dumb do you think these teams are that they are just going to take all of your trash off your hands and give you picks and promising young talent in the process. Lol, the knicks make out like bandits in all these trades while everyone else gets screwed, try again.


First off, Richardson and Jefferies contracts are far from "monster." A simple trip to Hoopshype.com would have shown you that Richardson has just one more year on his contract at the fraction of the price Wally Szerzbiak costs and Jefferies for just 2 more seasons. Both are good ROLE players and can do many of the things the Cavs had hoped to attain at February's deadline last season. If they do not work out, it would not be difficult to trade them at their price tag (Richardson $9 million per on average; Jefferies $6 million per on average) and contract length; they'll be free agents about the same time as LeBron.

As I explained with Zach Randolph, he's the no.2 option that a team like Cleveland would take a chance on because of how few trade assets they have and how necessary he is after LeBron has shown he can be contained offensively by a team. Randolph is no player you build your team around but he very well might be the kind of player that turns you into a contender as your 2nd option. *I don't particularly care about the whole cancer label because guys have had that throughout their careers have shut critics up. I don't care about how much better the Blazers are without him because many players on the Grizzlies contributed much more to title winners/contenders without Gasol and you now see what Gasol means to the Lakers.* I'm sure that someone desperate enough or smart enough would take a chance on a 25 year old 20 and 10 big man.

Malik Rose's contact is expiring so he actually saves the Sonics money who have Watson until the 2010-2011 season. Watson has voiced his displeasure with the team on several occassions and I think the team old be ready to move him. It's called the business of basketball in the NBA where talent is not always the main motivator of trades.

As much as Atlanta got it right this year, many Hawks fans themselves have suggested it might be a good idea to blow it up when these players trade values are so high; it's actually a current thread right now. One of the main problems they mentioned and I agree with his depth. This trade would certainly accomplish that and lose very little in terms of talent. Horford is a huge loss but he is playing out of position at the 5 to accomodate Josh Smith at the 4. Both players are at their best at the 4 position so it would make sense to move one of them. As much as Lee presents a similar problem at the 4 position, he has no qualms about coming off the bench and provides a similar effect and production to Horford. Because of this, I fail to see your point and am pretty confused by you reducing David Lee to a "garbage man;" what the hell is Horford then?


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

silverpaw1786 said:


> No. Horford is untouchable so far as the knicks are concerned. Lee and Balkman for Childress and Stoudemire might work though.


David Lee is a 14 and 10 big man with limited time and touches. What makes you think those two (Childress and Stoudemire) would be worth him, along with a solid bench player like Balkman?


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Mr Blue...*



alphaorange said:


> You might want to take a look at those salaries again. #1, Zach can give the Cavs a superb lowpost player and he would HAVE to defer to LJ. #2, Roses contract is not all that long. #3, JJ is not garbage. Overpaid? yes, but not so much its ridiculous. #4, Seattle could use some veteran leadership from a class guy.
> 
> One first thought was its a bad trade, but it actually is not so bad.
> 
> Twinkie, I have not heard anything aboout Childress being available and I don't know what we would do with him. Smith is intriguing because paired with Lee, they would dominate the glass and he would fix defensive deficiencies. Only available if the Hawks decide to go with Williams. Horford is going nowhere. Randolph is considered to be the biggest risk/reward player in the draft. I just don't want to gamble on another wasted pick since we only have one for the next 2 years.


I could be mistaken but I did hear following the Hawks series loss to the Celtics that retaining both Joshes was NOT a done deal. I could be mistaken, however, because I have not been able to find the article after 15 minutes looking. We do know that these guys have uttered the company line that they'd like to return but we all know it is at a certain price. Some believe that Childress will request a contract worth more than the max MLE which the Hawks are rumored not to want to do. 

I, based off my personnel perferences, would be willing to give him the deal he wants but have it front-loaded so that it maximizes our 2010-2011 offseason buying power (assuming Walsh sticks to his word). Childress is one of those character guys that seem to be present on all winning teams, so I think there is an apparent need for him even if he is overpaid. He would at least earn his money because of our lack of experience, skill and chemistry at the 3 position; is there any doubt he'd fit next to Curry? I think he is certainly capable of starting but could come off the bench just the same. I personally like the idea of starting him while having a guy like Anthony Randolph (assuming we draft him) develop slowly until he can eventually step into a more prominent role at the 3 spot.

I understand your concern about Randolph because he does appear to be a huge gamble but gambles are all we really have at this point. Solid two way players can be had by trades and free agency but the game becomes even harder when you mention the kind of players that Randolph could become. If you think about it, major players are seldom signed via free agency. This is why I'd be willing to take the chance on him and build this team through different options. I really do not like the idea of having to be in this situation (a lottery team) for too long because it only turns you into a farm system for players. What's worse is that we could end up like a team like the Grizzlies (or Celtics before this year for that matter) who seem to pin their hopes on landing a top tier pick to select a top tier player and be disappointed every year when the ball does not fall their way; lottery ping pong balls are far to unpredictable to base your future on, look what it got us this year.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

...there would have to be more more additions than just Childress to the backcourt, however. As good as he is, he is not capable of addressing our needs in the backcourt. I would still like to bring in guys like Mike Miller and Mikael Pietrus who are both reportedly available. They would improve our backcourt (especially after these trades) and fit well with what we have and want to do. 

As much as I want to ditch Marbury, I realize it might be in our best interest to keep him and his expiring contract. For all the things he is- or for that matter is not- Steph can still be an asset to this team either on the floor or in a trade. They do say that the most dangerous animal is one that is injuried; so I think time will only help clarify and strengthen our situation with him. Afterall, Marbury is at his best when he has shooters to pass the ball to after he gets into the paint; the same can be said for Curry. Those two should be natural fits next to each other assuming they have those shooters around them. I personally would like to see a team like this for this upcoming season:

PG: Stephon Marbury, Damon Jones, Mardy Collins
SG: Mike Miller, Mikael Pietrus, Salim Stoudamire
SF: Josh Childress, Anthony Randolph, Brian Cardinal
PF: Al Horford, Joe Smith, 
C: Eddy Curry, Ben Wallace, Jerome James, Johan Petro

It offers an excellent blend of veteran leadership, play and experience with youth, talent and potential to move forward with. The two way play and diversity of skills with the role players should offer a significant amount more cohesiveness on the floor, which should help win more games. We'd also retain our financial flexibility and what we could do personnel wise.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

..


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

Hawks are not trading Horford. Period. You're wasting your time even thinking about it. No, David Lee in any kind of package would not net you him either. 

Hawks trade anyone, it's Marvin Williams to keep Josh Smith. Or Josh Smith, because Williams has a lot less value.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Blue Magic said:


> :thinking2:.....kind of like Isiah last year? :lol:. If Randolph is such a good player, then why dont you want this guy on your team?? (I think I know the answer). Oh, and I think together both Jefferies and QRich are overpaid, which is "Monster" to me. Ill pass.:


I never was fond of the idea of adding Randolph to the Knicks, just as I am now of keeping him. As talented a player must be, he has to fit in order for him to be relevant. Randolph does not fit with the Knicks, largely because we have Curry at the 5, but on a team like the Cavs he certainly could be a huge difference maker. 

By what standards are Richardson and Jefferies overpaid? If your essentially renting them- since they have short term deals that could be reapprioprated correctly when they are free agents- then they can't be considered bad investments if they contribute to what you want to do. If you care to still consider them overpaid, then what do you consider Ben Wallace, Wally Szerzbiak and Damon Jones? That would make it an even deal, no?




Blue Magic said:


> :So if both Rose and QRich are coming off the books next year, why on earth would ur knicks just trade them for more marginal talent.....Why would they want to aquire older guys w/ even worse contracts like Big Ben, Joe Smith, Jones, and Wally to play in D'Antoni's up tempo system when they could get better talent or sign a better FA.......?? At second look, this trade is just bad on all angles.......It doesn't make much sense for anybody, Not even your Knicks.:


Malik Rose would essentially be moved for Damon Jones...who is also an expiring contract; Jones can play in our system because of his jump shot,however, and is the kind of guy that makes a lockerroom fun. Quentin Richardson would be included in a deal that would net the Knicks $18 million in expiring contracts and bring in veteran role players that can serve as role models for our younger players. That's why you move them.





Blue Magic said:


> avid Lee IS a garbage man..... meaning he hustles, dives for loose balls, get offensive rebs & put backs, and basically does the dirty work to get on the court. I'm not reducing him to anything, I am a Gator fan so i actually really support dude, but im just calling him what he is. Horford is more of a skilled guy, but he does those little things too and is the superior defender which is why ur trade proposal is preposterous. Lee is good, but Horford >>>> Lee. Al has a 17 ft jumper that Lee doesn't have, he is bigger, and he is only like 20-21 as to Lee's 25-26........You are kidding yourself if u think Lee 4 Horford is an even swap. Plus, Horford put those #'s up as the 5th option on the court many times and only as a rook......ur acting like the rookie was getting reps over JJ, Smith, JChil, Marv, and Bibby.......He probably will next year but this year he was the fifth wheel. DLee will likely never be much better then he currently is now, where as with Al, the sky is the limit. Only decent guys you could probly get off the Hawks right now are Childress & Marv. They will probably lock everyone else up(meaning JSmith, JJ, Al aren't going anywhere, so dream on). :krazy: :krazy: :krazy:


Horford is a better defender than Lee which is why I would be interested in making the trade. Aside from that, there is not much that seperates Lee from Horford although Horford's defensive game makes him much more useful to us. 

Horford has a DECENT jumper at this point but I would not necessarily say it is anything better than Lee. Lee's main problem is that he is reluctant to put his jumper up for whatever reason. When Brown was our coach,however, he had many pick and roll sets where Lee successfully took and made jumpers along the baseline. In other words, when you need him to make those jumpers then he can. He's not the kind of player that can create his own shot but neither is Horford. In spite of all this, Lee appears to be the better scorer averaging the same amount of points as Horford, in less time and being a significantly less focal point in his team's offense.

Once again, I would not be interested in Horford if I did not think he is a better prospect for us than David Lee. Those two are, however, not to far off from each other in terms of overall play. When you factor in the trade as a whole, where you get one of the best 6th men in the NBA in Jamal Crawford with Nate Robinson and Ronaldo Balkman, then I think it is a fair deal.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Dissonance19 said:


> Hawks are not trading Horford. Period. You're wasting your time even thinking about it. No, David Lee in any kind of package would not net you him either.
> 
> Hawks trade anyone, it's Marvin Williams to keep Josh Smith. Or Josh Smith, because Williams has a lot less value.


Why trade either Williams or Smith when you can keep them both together and get an entire bench in the process? Does not make sense considering Williams and Smith compliment each other pretty well.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

i actually think that the deal does work for all three teams. although NY would probably have to add thier #6 or a future #1 to cleveland. There is just too much money being swallowed by cleveland to not have to add some incentive. but....

new york: they lose out talent wise, but free up ALOT of money in 2010. 

cleveland: they obtain some talented players at a cheap price, but assume ALOT of long term salary. This might be the only way for them to obtain talent at this point though, outside of veterans taking minimum deals.

seattle: they lose earl watson for an expiring and a pick. probably directly what they are trying to accomplish at this point. they are running the team into the ground until they get to okc.

maybe seattle gets #6 but gives up their san antono pick back to new york and cleveland keeps #19.


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

no no no....come on now, everyone tosses in their pick except the knicks?? everyone's trade 95% of the time never involved the knicks trading their pick unless they're getting an even higher pick in return........let's pretend most of these nba gm's have half a brain.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

knickstorm said:


> no no no....come on now, everyone tosses in their pick except the knicks?? everyone's trade 95% of the time never involved the knicks trading their pick unless they're getting an even higher pick in return........let's pretend most of these nba gm's have half a brain.


First off, the Knicks easily give up the most talent in the trade that involves a player that can actually change a game significantly. Everyone else is giving up expiring contracts, so why should the Knicks include their pick? What GM with half a brain give up more talent in a trade AND throw in a top 6 lottery pick just for ****'s and giggles? Besides, I only suggested looking to obtain Seattle's later pick (24th) in exchange for cash since they already have about 5 draft picks (2 first and 3 second rounders) but basically 13 gauranteed contracts. Any GM with "half a brain" should be able to do simple math to realize they might not be able to keep that 3rd first rounder because it would put their roster at 16, one more than the league limit.

P.S., I have no idea what point you were trying to make following your first sentence.


----------

