# To Do The Unthinkable...



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Some view me as a guy that is a "cool-aid" drinker when it comes to the Knicks, although I strongly disagree. Personally, my only interest is to try to see how the Knicks can become a good team. This is why that even though I strongly support Isiah's acquistion of Eddy Curry that I'd move even him if it meant immediate success in the present and down the road. Someone on another board suggested an interesting trade for Eddy Curry, Nate Robinson and our 23rd to the Hawks for their no.3 and no.11 picks. The trade is made on the premise that both Frye and Morris have the capabilities of being adequate fill in's at the center position. That would allow us to look to fill in other needs on our team in a draft that is considered one of the best ever. For the Hawks, Curry adds to a lackluster center position and a dominating offensive player to put next to Joe Johnson. Robinson adds the PG they have been looking for that can also be a very strong offensive threat with his mind righ. What do you guys think?


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Finally,....*

It had to happen eventually. I agree with you. Only problem is that I believe the knicks have to take back salary since they are over the cap.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Finally,....*



alphaorange said:


> It had to happen eventually. I agree with you. Only problem is that I believe the knicks have to take back salary since they are over the cap.


The trade is legal as long as the Knicks make this kind of trade with a team below the cap. In those situations, the contracts do not have to be balanced as long as the team over the cap, does not take on more than 15% of the salaries they are sending out and the team below the cap has enough free money to absorb the amount of contracts without being placed over the cap. As you can see, that move would do wonders for our payroll and still possibly keep us competitive. Still, I'd hate to see Eddy go without knowing exactly if it's worth it. The Bulls deal however would be balanced out because we would have been compensated with 2 better first round picks and recieved cap flexibility in the long run.

What would you do with those picks and what would you add to the team?


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Great question*

Although the draft is deep, it's really hard this year to get a feel for who will excel at this level. I'm willing to give Frye a couple of years at center and lee at PF, in this scenario. I like Collins but I'm not sure which spot he is better in so I'll say point. That makes 2 and 3 critical areas. Both need to shoot well and defend, the 3 should be a good boarder at his position. Although not a great shooter, Brewer would be hard to pass up. Almond also sounds intriguing at the 2 but will fall to later picks. Depending on Morris, we may need another center. I'd like to acquire a 2nd or two and take chances on the SU boys, Nichols and Watkins. Under your scenario, it is wide open. What are you thinking?


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

*Re: Great question*

i'm a fan of neither team, so i can look at your trade objectively...and sorry to say this, but if i were the hawks, i wouldn't even consider this trade...why would the hawks give up two high lotto picks for bad contracts and the number #23??? ...this trade would be great for the knicks, but the hawks have absolutely no incentive to make this trade...


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Apparently, you don't watch much*

or read much. Curry's contract is a GREAT contract for his level of play. The trade is this:

Curry .....starting center, 1st or 2nd best low post scorer in the league and future probable allstar.

Nate .....Rookie contract, one of the better offensive guard sparkplugs off the bench


23rd pick

FOR 3rd pick and the 11th pick

Lets see.....Curry > anyone available at the 3rd, and Nate and the 23rd for the 11th. Seems about right to me. Where are the bad contracts?


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

*Re: Apparently, you don't watch much*



alphaorange said:


> or read much. Curry's contract is a GREAT contract for his level of play. The trade is this:
> 
> Curry .....starting center, 1st or 2nd best low post scorer in the league and future probable allstar.
> 
> ...


thanks for insulting me...why don't you go to the hawks board and see what they think of it...later...


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Great question*



alphaorange said:


> Although the draft is deep, it's really hard this year to get a feel for who will excel at this level. I'm willing to give Frye a couple of years at center and lee at PF, in this scenario. I like Collins but I'm not sure which spot he is better in so I'll say point. That makes 2 and 3 critical areas. Both need to shoot well and defend, the 3 should be a good boarder at his position. Although not a great shooter, Brewer would be hard to pass up. Almond also sounds intriguing at the 2 but will fall to later picks. Depending on Morris, we may need another center. I'd like to acquire a 2nd or two and take chances on the SU boys, Nichols and Watkins. Under your scenario, it is wide open. What are you thinking?


I know your probably going to kill me for this but I was thinking of Branden Wright drafted at the 3 spot and by some miracle try and select Brewer with the 11th pick or by moving up in the draft. Wright looks and sounds like a hard guy to pass up because he very well will be a very good big man once he adds some weight to his frame. It just seems like it would be an extremely potent lineup where we'd be at least 2 deep at each of the big man positions.

You sold me on Nichols a long time ago when I caught a couple games of Syracuse. Then again, aside from Branden Wright, there is no one in the draft I really feel comfortable commenting on because I have not seen enough games to do so.


----------



## knicksfan (Jan 4, 2003)

Hey Twinkie,

Could you bother to spell Kool-Aid right next time? Yeah, thanks.


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

*Re: Apparently, you don't watch much*



bootstrenf said:


> thanks for insulting me...why don't you go to the hawks board and see what they think of it...later...


seriously, i cant believe all these eddy curry kool-aid drinkers. Eddy Curry is the 1st or 2nd best low post scorer in the league!?!?!?!?!? If he was then he wouldnt be a "probable all star" you got Duncan, Yao, Brand, Gasol, J'Oneal, and those are just the ones off the top of my head that score better in the post than Curry.

i've said this so many times before....people who come up with trade ideas involving draft picks always ripa team off thinking it's so easy to acquire one, but draft picks are obviously a valuable commodity because they want their team to acquire one.

Sorry alpha but you're hurting your own argument, if there's no one at #3 who's better than CUrry, then the knicks are just ripping themselves off by trading curry in a package for the #3 then right? Or is everything made up by the player the knicks can take at #11?


----------



## urwhatueati8god (May 27, 2003)

*Re: Apparently, you don't watch much*



alphaorange said:


> or read much. Curry's contract is a GREAT contract for his level of play. The trade is this:
> 
> Curry .....starting center, 1st or 2nd best low post scorer in the league and future probable allstar.
> 
> ...


Wrong on so many different levels. Hell, Javaris Crittendon will be better and he might not even go in the lottery. Yi Jianlian will be a hell of a lot better than Eddy Curry.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*If you follow the board...*

you know I'm not shy to criticize Curry. However, the man shoots 60% from the floor and chews up anyone guarding him 1 on 1. Which of those other guys dos that? They may have more well-rounded games than Eddy, but they are not better post scorers. 19ppg on 60% is surpassed by who? Talk to me about who at #3 is better than Curry after they have actually played a game in the NBA, OK? We are also talking about centers, here. Every team needs one and the Hawks don't have one. I also don't give a crap about what the Hawk posters think. Reminds me of the Wolves posters that think KG is going to bring (3) 1st rounders plus a couple of starters....right.

Storm, your logic is flawed. The purpose of trading a pick is to strengthen your TEAM, not just get a player back who is better. In this scenario, we have chosen Frye to be the pivot and are trying to build a better TEAM by improving the supporting pieces.

Twink, I haven't seen enough of Wright to say I think it's good OR bad. I'll trust you on that pick...it seems reasonable and in line with what I have read. Love the Brewer pick but may have to trade up again by adding a player to that pick.


Boot....you must be kidding. Curry added to that team gives them everything except a PG. They also have the 23rd and other players to try and trade to get one. They also have future picks to trade. It's about TEAM building, not necessarily fleecing your trade partner.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

*Re: If you follow the board...*



alphaorange said:


> Boot....you must be kidding. Curry added to that team gives them everything except a PG. They also have the 23rd and other players to try and trade to get one. They also have future picks to trade. It's about TEAM building, not necessarily fleecing your trade partner.



okay, let's see here...the hawks are a team built on wing play with their stable of athletic swingmen...what they need is a pg to distribute the ball and a center who will rebound and play defense....two things curry does not do well...and if the hawks were to get curry, what role would the rest of the players fullfill??? curry is a black hole on offense and is incapable of making passes out of double teams...exactly what the hawks do not need...and can nate even run a team??? he can score, but an undersized shoot first point is the last thing the hawks need...with their two picks, the hawks have the ability to pick up a point and a center, all without having to pay them insane amounts of money as they would be signed to their respective rookie contracts...and yes, curry has a horrible contract for what he produces on the court...

curry/robinson/#23 for #3/#11 is a horrible deal for the hawks, and most would agree with me...


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

*Re: If you follow the board...*



alphaorange said:


> you know I'm not shy to criticize Curry. However, the man shoots 60% from the floor and chews up anyone guarding him 1 on 1. Which of those other guys dos that? They may have more well-rounded games than Eddy, but they are not better post scorers. 19ppg on 60% is surpassed by who? Talk to me about who at #3 is better than Curry after they have actually played a game in the NBA, OK? We are also talking about centers, here. Every team needs one and the Hawks don't have one. I also don't give a crap about what the Hawk posters think. Reminds me of the Wolves posters that think KG is going to bring (3) 1st rounders plus a couple of starters....right.
> 
> Storm, your logic is flawed. The purpose of trading a pick is to strengthen your TEAM, not just get a player back who is better. In this scenario, we have chosen Frye to be the pivot and are trying to build a better TEAM by improving the supporting pieces.
> 
> ...


if the logic is flawed then you gotta stop stressing that the hawks cant find anyone better at #3. If its about strengthening the team, the hawks don't need curry. Unless you're phoenix, if you wanna win, you have to play D. Their problem is that their defense allows the opposition to shoot at a 46% clip, their D is terrible and Curry doesnt help improve that. Eddy Curry on that squad isnt going to revitalize the franchise, neither is Nate Robinson. But perhaps COnley, Wright, whoever they take at #3 and #11 will, esp in a strong draft like this year.

And obviously, at this point in eddy's curry you cant say Wright, horford etc are better than CUrry, but what are the chances that at #3 will be a player available that a couple years down the road we'll say we'd rather have than curry? Pretty damn good. And by then it's too damn late to talk to you. YOu cant look back and say "oops i was wrong" it's about having the foresight so that doesnt happen. 

Every team needs a center? Sure lets look at the teams left esp in the eastern conference, your centers are Chris Webber, Big Z, and before that, Mikki Moore when the nets were around. In the West, Oberto and Mehmhut "do nothing" ohkur. In the new age NBA, you dont have to have a center unless he's Yao Ming or soon to be Greg Oden. 2nd tier centers ala Eddy Curry just arent necessary. 

The other players are more well rounded because they get doubled so they have to expand their games not only to make it easier for them to score on the post, but to also get others invovled and make it harder to D them up. SO dont hold it against them that they aint one trick ponies. Plus when the other players get fouled in the post, KG, Pau, Yao, Amare, they actually hit their ft's.

Curry's got a long way to go before he's worthy of being traded for the 3rd overall pick. Turnover stats must change, he's one of the tops in the NBA in that category and he's not even a freaking ball handler.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i think its a bad deal for the knicks from a talent standpoint this is a 2 player draft, there isn't any1 else you would trade eddy for.

also from a chemistry standpoint you spend 2 years building a team with a player as its star and then you switch up for a player who cant make up the void left by that player(Curry), all the positive momentem you built goes away for a player who most likely will be more well rounded but not at all better.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Come on, now....*

Curry doesn't have to be the #1 option on offense and, in fact, would serve a team better by NOT being a #1. Every team MUST have a low post game in order for the wings to be successful. The Hawks currently do not own a real low post game. As I said, they would still retain assets to obtain a quality PG (which would be the remaining missing piece). Everybody wants to do it all in one year but it doesn't happen that way. I don't give a damn who you guys draft, you aren't going anywhere for a few years, just like us. The idea is to just keep building and improving. It only makes sense for us to move Curry if we improve the general quality of the team longterm. We can trade him because we have another guy (Frye) that can play the center spot and although he isn't the dominating inside presence on offense Eddy is, can play it effectively enough that it allows us to obtain pieces that make us better as a team. Getting Curry would actually make your wing player's jobs easier.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

*Re: Come on, now....*



alphaorange said:


> Curry doesn't have to be the #1 option on offense and, in fact, would serve a team better by NOT being a #1. Every team MUST have a low post game in order for the wings to be successful. The Hawks currently do not own a real low post game. As I said, they would still retain assets to obtain a quality PG (which would be the remaining missing piece). Everybody wants to do it all in one year but it doesn't happen that way. I don't give a damn who you guys draft, you aren't going anywhere for a few years, just like us. The idea is to just keep building and improving. It only makes sense for us to move Curry if we improve the general quality of the team longterm. We can trade him because we have another guy (Frye) that can play the center spot and although he isn't the dominating inside presence on offense Eddy is, can play it effectively enough that it allows us to obtain pieces that make us better as a team. Getting Curry would actually make your wing player's jobs easier.



okay, as a non #1 option, curry would be asked to rebound, make decent passes, and play defense...things he doesn't do well...i really don't see this trade benefitting the hawks at all...we might as well agree to disagree...


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Fine*

We can disagree. Just realize that you already have a good defensive and rebounding team with one of the most outstanding off the ball shot-blockers in the NBA. If Curry was a real good rebounder and defender along with his offensive skills it would cost you all of your good players to get him. His strength is what he can do for the rest of the players on offense. We don't have the team make-up to best utilize him.


----------



## shakespeare (Nov 2, 2006)

More Kool-Aid, Please


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

knicksfan said:


> Hey Twinkie,
> 
> Could you bother to spell Kool-Aid right next time? Yeah, thanks.


Hey Knicksfan,

Could you bother to find a hobby?


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Apparently, you don't watch much*



urwhatueati8god said:


> Wrong on so many different levels. Hell, Javaris Crittendon will be better and he might not even go in the lottery. Yi Jianlian will be a hell of a lot better than Eddy Curry.


So we have a crystal ball now do we? 

Sometimes it's not necessarily who will be better but how the individual changes the game for a team. It is possible that the two aforementioned players you referred to MAY become better players than Eddy but neither can change the game or affect the game the way he can. Low post threats, especially the kind that play the game with the back to the baskets, can effectively control how the defense covers their team moreso than a perimeter player or a faceup player because they are inside the heart of the defense. If Eddy ever learns hwo to pass the ball out of doubles, which is not a tricky asset to develop, all the tricks and skills Javaris and Yi may have could be irrelevant. I like to think of it all as Kobe vs Shaq with the Lakers. I'm a huge Laker fan, post Shaq, but I'm willing to admit that despite Kobe being a better player than Shaq, Shaq changed the game much more than Kobe did when he was a Laker.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Apparently, you don't watch much*



knickstorm said:


> seriously, i cant believe all these eddy curry kool-aid drinkers. Eddy Curry is the 1st or 2nd best low post scorer in the league!?!?!?!?!? If he was then he wouldnt be a "probable all star" you got Duncan, Yao, Brand, Gasol, J'Oneal, and those are just the ones off the top of my head that score better in the post than Curry.
> 
> i've said this so many times before....people who come up with trade ideas involving draft picks always ripa team off thinking it's so easy to acquire one, but draft picks are obviously a valuable commodity because they want their team to acquire one.
> 
> Sorry alpha but you're hurting your own argument, if there's no one at #3 who's better than CUrry, then the knicks are just ripping themselves off by trading curry in a package for the #3 then right? Or is everything made up by the player the knicks can take at #11?


When you look at low post scorers solely in the sense of their offensive play, Eddy is up their in the same category as a Duncan, Yao, Brand, Gasol, J'Oneal, etc. Why? He manages to covert at the same level or a greater level than either of those players and on less shots. At this time and moment, Eddy is still an unfinished product and still has to learn a few of the nuisances of post play in order for him to be on par with those players but he is already damn close.

P.S., teams value draft picks differently depending on their situation. Teams like the Hawks who have sucked for years and have went on record several times stating the want proven players ie veterans, might not value draft picks as much as a team like the Knicks who have barely gotten their feet wet in the rebuilding process.

About the Curry trade, their might not be anyone as good as Eddy at the 3 and 11 spot but that does not mean that we can not get players that will help us to win. Sometimes quantity beats quality and is what the Pistons have proven by beating teams with better talent than themselves. Although I still firmly believe that Eddy is the best way to win and win big, I think that deal is something you have to at least consider especially given our situation. We would still have 2 potential centers in Frye and Morris that might give teams problems in the post so that might counter the loss of Curry. That is basically the premise under which this deal would be made.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: If you follow the board...*



bootstrenf said:


> okay, let's see here...the hawks are a team built on wing play with their stable of athletic swingmen...what they need is a pg to distribute the ball and a center who will rebound and play defense....two things curry does not do well...and if the hawks were to get curry, what role would the rest of the players fullfill??? curry is a black hole on offense and is incapable of making passes out of double teams...exactly what the hawks do not need...and can nate even run a team??? he can score, but an undersized shoot first point is the last thing the hawks need...with their two picks, the hawks have the ability to pick up a point and a center, all without having to pay them insane amounts of money as they would be signed to their respective rookie contracts...and yes, curry has a horrible contract for what he produces on the court...
> 
> curry/robinson/#23 for #3/#11 is a horrible deal for the hawks, and most would agree with me...


LOL. You just made the point that the Hawks are a team built on back-court play. Gee-golly wiz, what would be the best way to capitalize on that? A low post scorer with the ability to stretch the defense is what and their are not many better at doing so than Eddy can. Although he has issues of recognizing when to pass out of doubles, he is only 24 years old, and is not exactly an idiot when it comes to passing the ball. Although Eddy is not a great defender or rebounder, he is not nearly as bad as most claim. He boxes out and keeps his man off the boards which is all that is really needed. On defense, he's not a bad one on one defender but could stand to improve on help defense. Still, he's only 24 and has more than enough time to learn to do so.

As for worrying about Nate running a team, it is irrelevant. Joe Johnson has played the PG position more than once and could continue to do so with Nate as temporary relief in certain plays. Nate is actually a perfect compliment for a guard like Johnson because he is also a combo guard but more of a scorer than the ball mover that Johnson is.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

*Re: If you follow the board...*



twinkiefoot said:


> *Although he has issues of recognizing when to pass out of doubles, he is only 24 years old, and is not exactly an idiot when it comes to passing the ball*.



not exactly an idiot??? 3.6 to's per game...not even a primary ball handler..."issues" recognizing when to pass out of doubles??? LOL 





twinkiefoot said:


> *Although Eddy is not a great defender or rebounder, he is not nearly as bad as most claim.*


7 feet tall, 300 pounds....7.1 rpg??? not as bad as most claim??? :lol: :lol: :lol: 



why am i even debating this topic with you??? i'll leave now...thanks for the education...


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: If you follow the board...*



bootstrenf said:


> not exactly an idiot??? 3.6 to's per game...not even a primary ball handler..."issues" recognizing when to pass out of doubles??? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Really, why are you debating this topic with me? I'll I need to do is call alpha into this discussion to remix those insults of his to you.

If you saw Curry play during the later months of the season, you'd notice he did not have the luxury of having players capable of putting the ball in his hands where he needed to be. Our backcourt was in shambles from injuries which also took away our ability to shoot the ball with range. Teams were free to pressure at will and that resulted in a spike of turnovers during his final months as a Knick. When watching the games, you'd see that Curry rarely gets beat one on one defensively; his main problems comes from his inability to be an effective help defender on a relatively mediocre defensive team. If you played the game as well, you'd know that rebounding the ball is not only about grabbing the most boards as possible but keeping your man off of those rebounds to prevent second opportunities. For the most part, Eddy has managed to do that and has resulted in the Knicks having one of the better rebounding to opponent rebounding deficits in the league.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

*Re: If you follow the board...*



TwinkieFoot said:


> Really, why are you debating this topic with me? I'll I need to do is call alpha into this discussion to remix those insults of his to you.
> 
> If you saw Curry play during the later months of the season, you'd notice he did not have the luxury of having players capable of putting the ball in his hands where he needed to be. Our backcourt was in shambles from injuries which also took away our ability to shoot the ball with range. Teams were free to pressure at will and that resulted in a spike of turnovers during his final months as a Knick. When watching the games, you'd see that Curry rarely gets beat one on one defensively; his main problems comes from his inability to be an effective help defender on a relatively mediocre defensive team. If you played the game as well, you'd know that rebounding the ball is not only about grabbing the most boards as possible but keeping your man off of those rebounds to prevent second opportunities. For the most part, Eddy has managed to do that and has resulted in the Knicks having one of the better rebounding to opponent rebounding deficits in the league.




blah blah blah....if he's that good, why do you want to trade him so badly??? LOL...


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Actually......*

Twink would be the last person to trade Eddy. This was a hypothetical to generate discussion. I have some of the same complaints as you, however, I can also acknowledge that Curry has not seen a ton of doubles until this year. I don't think you will find any one willing to say he is hopeless, just a difference of opinion as to his ceiling. You need to back off my Knick brothers.....


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: If you follow the board...*



bootstrenf said:


> blah blah blah....if he's that good, why do you want to trade him so badly??? LOL...


Reread the post again. I never wanted to trade Curry. All I did was submit to people an idea that I thought was interesting because of the situation we're in. If you been on this board, you'd know I'm a big Curry supporter.


----------

