# Knicks Working On Trade To Bolster/Reduce Roster



## KVIP112 (Oct 31, 2005)

http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/46859/20070702/randolph_introduced_knicks_working_on_another_trade/

New York Times - 
Isiah Thomas introduced Zach Randolph at a press conference on Monday. Thomas is not concerned about Randolph's off-the-court actions, saying that the team had "done all our homework here, and I think we're right about this one." 

"I'm a good person," declared the 6'9" Randolph. "Everybody that knows me personally knows I'm a good person." 

Randolph is about to turn 26 years of age, and could emerge as an All-Star in the Eastern Conference. He averaged 23.6 points and 10.1 rebounds per game last season. 

"Assuming Randolph stays out of trouble," writes Howard Beck of the New York Times, "the Knicks could boast the most fearsome, and certainly the largest, low-post tandem in the Eastern Conference. Randolph and [Eddy] Curry are strong, skilled scorers who command double teams. Thomas expects a playoff appearance ... and much more." 

*Beck says Thomas is "known to be working on another trade, both to bolster the roster and to reduce it." 

On Monday, Thomas told the media that the Knicks are pursuing free-agent Rashard Lewis.* [READ]


----------



## 0oh_S0o_FreSh!! (Jun 3, 2006)

If we persuade lewis, it sucks because we still have to give up alot of players.

Marbury
Crawford
Richardson
Randolph
Curry
Collins
Jeffries
Morris
Nichols 
Chandler
Rose 
James 
Kato
Balkman
Robinson
Lee
Dickau 
Jones

Only people i really dont want to part with is Robinson, Lee, Randolph, Curry, Chandler, Balkman, Nichols, Collins, and Crawford, but i wouldnt mind much.


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

0oh_S0o_FreSh!! said:


> If we persuade lewis, it sucks because we still have to give up alot of players.
> 
> Marbury
> Crawford
> ...


you wouldnt give up nichols in a package for rashard??? ohh well no need to worry about taht no more


----------



## EwingStarksOakley94 (May 13, 2003)

To me everyone is expendable for the right deal. Curry and Lee would be the only two guys I'd be hesitant to let go of. Still, if we were getting a better player in return, I could understand putting them in a package.


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

If we Knick Fans would have got the chance to see Curry & Lee in the Starting lineup together for Forty-one consecutive games last season it would be no doubt on who is going to be the Knicks Starting Center and PF this comming season.


----------



## different_13 (Aug 30, 2005)

Well now that you have Randolph as well as Curry (this is assuming you keep both), the Knicks need outside shooting like never before.

Assuming Marbury will be playing point (and doing so well, getting the ball to Curry and Randolph), you're left with Balkman, Richardson, Jeffries and Chandler capable of playing good minutes at SF. Richardson hasn't shown much of his brilliant shooting, though hopefully he'll get more open looks this year.
(I'm counting Lee as mostly a PF)

You've also got Jamal Crawford, Mardy Collins and Nate Robinson (this is assuming Dickau gets waived. And who was that other dude? oh yeah, Fred Jones, him too)

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that some combination of any 2 of those players could get you a decent shooting swingman. Mo-Pete would be excellent IMO, but that would have to be a 3-way deal (as Toronto doesn't need more swingmen or guards)

I'm discounting phoenix as a trade partner due to their stingy ownership (if they're not willing to keep a 1st round rookie contract, they're not gonna take Q back!)
Miami could use a Q type player.. But they have nothing Toronto might want (hm, if only Toronto hadn't already signed Jason kapono...)


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

different_13 said:


> Well now that you have Randolph as well as Curry (this is assuming you keep both), the Knicks need outside shooting like never before.
> 
> Assuming Marbury will be playing point (and doing so well, getting the ball to Curry and Randolph), you're left with Balkman, Richardson, Jeffries and Chandler capable of playing good minutes at SF. Richardson hasn't shown much of his brilliant shooting, though hopefully he'll get more open looks this year.
> (I'm counting Lee as mostly a PF)
> ...


Quentin Richardson shot 37.6% this year from beyond the arch. With the Suns when he was regarded as a top tier 3 point shooter and lead the league in 3 point makes, Richardson shot 35.8%. How exactly does that register as Richardson not having shown his "brillant shooting?" In addition to Crawford and Robinson, who you already consider solid shooters along with Demetris Nichols, I don't think our perimeter shooting is as bad as people may assume it is. I'd like to compact our roster as well but not at the expense of young players and not for the sake of doing so. 

Back to Richardson, I say keep him until we can really find a guy who can take us to the next level in terms of perimeter play. Personally, I was hoping we could draft a Nick Young who I believe can be a star backcourt player and could be groomed behind Richardson. Since we don't have him or a prospect that resembles that pedigree, I say that we should keep Richardson until an offer we can't refuse comes along.


----------



## Zuca (Dec 4, 2003)

Again, JJ+Fred or Dickau to Warriors for Adonal Foyle seems perfect!


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Whats with you and Foyle?*

The way you're trying to get him on the Knicks you'd think he was Shaq. The guy is a marginal bench center who is overpaid. We don't need him and the other guys will either be traded as expirings for a real player, cut, or in the possible case of Jones, retained. Just say no to Foyle.


----------



## Zuca (Dec 4, 2003)

*Re: Whats with you and Foyle?*



alphaorange said:


> The way you're trying to get him on the Knicks you'd think he was Shaq. The guy is a marginal bench center who is overpaid.


He is not Shaq. Hell, even Curry will never be like Shaq (although he is a good player). But he is a good defender, play with passion and bring good things in locker room.



alphaorange said:


> We don't need him and the other guys will either be traded as expirings for a real player, cut, or in the possible case of Jones, retained. Just say no to Foyle.


And say yes to Jerome "the new Patrick Ewing" James! I wouldn't like as a Knicks perspective if you dealt Jones or Dickau with QRich (or Crawford, it's just an example) for him, as an example. But even financially, it won't hurt much, especially since his last year is a TEAM OPTION. It's more about swapping an overpaid useless for an overpaid useful (even if not THAT much).


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

I agree completely with Zuca but feel we should move Jerome James and his contract and filler for Foyle. Foyle is an upgrade financially and in terms of play. We need glue guys on the floor anyway.


----------

