Thread Tools

Display Modes

Ed O · 07-11-2008, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B-Roy

Right, but if they're contracts are so much worse, how come all we could get for Randolph was Francis? The guy is just not appealing to teams.

We only got what we did because we decided to trade him no matter what... even if the return we got on him was not very good.

Quote:

As of right now, the Knicks aren't good enough to even sniff the playoffs, so why try? If LeBron is their target, they should start losing and acquiring top picks. It makes sense to just lose (badly) for the next two years, since they have no chance of competing anyways.

And LeBron is going to want to come to a team that is non-competitive... why?

He's going to have his choice of any team in the league. A franchise that's demonstrated a willingness to go into the tank for him will remind him of... Cleveland. He's had to carry that team on his back since he's been there and, presumably, he would prefer to be with a franchise that has a bit more imagination than "lose early and often" as a strategy.

Quote:

IIRC, the Knicks have been trying to shop Randolph for quite awhile now. How come he isn't gone yet? The best they can do is cap-relief.

I don't think that it's accurate that they've been trying to shop Zach for "quite awhile". They've only had him on their roster for a year, and trades have only become possible in the last month or so.

Zach-bashers can't believe that the Knicks are passing up on instant cap relief because it doesn't coexist, logically, with the world view that Zach is worthless.

Ed O.

andalusian · 07-11-2008, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed O

Was the extension we gave Theo a bad move? By your logic, it was not. Without that extension we would not have had the contract to trade for Roy, so the signing can't be viewed in a vacuum.

Given that it was not the same person that was responsible for both events - I think it is very easy to make a distinction between a mistake and a set of moves that worked.

GMs make mistakes - but in the big picture, the Celtics did not make a huge mistake giving what turned into Randy Foye and Raef for Bassy and Ratliff - at worst it would have been a lateral move with money saving. In hind-sight, it enabled a championship team.

Spin it as you wish - but this was not a bad trade for the Celts.

**Schilly** · 07-11-2008, 05:29 PM

This thread got tired in a hurry.

B-Roy · 07-11-2008, 05:29 PM

Quote:

We only got what we did because we decided to trade him no matter what... even if the return we got on him was not very good.

So he has terrible trade value? Knicks won't get more than capspace.

Quote:

And LeBron is going to want to come to a team that is non-competitive... why?

He's going to have his choice of any team in the league. A franchise that's demonstrated a willingness to go into the tank for him will remind him of... Cleveland. He's had to carry that team on his back since he's been there and, presumably, he would prefer to be with a franchise that has a bit more imagination than "lose early and often" as a strategy.

Because by then, they'll have enough pieces (good draft picks).

Quote:

I don't think that it's accurate that they've been trying to shop Zach for "quite awhile". They've only had him on their roster for a year, and trades have only become possible in the last month or so.

Zach-bashers can't believe that the Knicks are passing up on instant cap relief because it doesn't coexist, logically, with the world view that Zach is worthless.

Walsh has been trying to shop him and Curry.
Didn't you admit he has bad value?

Ed O · 07-11-2008, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andalusian

Spin it as you wish - but this was not a bad trade for the Celts.

Uh. OK.

What WAS a bad trade, in your mind? Has any title-winning team made a bad trade in NBA history?

Any bad trade you offer up by a team that wins a championship within three years will be, by your line of reasoning, instantly forgiven because it arguably somehow, some way contributed to the title.

I reject that glossing-over of scrutiny, but if you want to do it... go for it.

Ed O.

**Schilly** · 07-11-2008, 05:35 PM

I'm still pissed about the Kiki trade damnit let's argue it!!!

PorterIn2004 · 07-11-2008, 05:35 PM

Lest people forget, the Randolph trade netted Francis (who's contract might help land Pritchard's Big Free Agent), Frye (who seems like a solid rotation guy on this roster and would likely start on at least a handful of teams), and a trade exception that went on to net both James Jones and Rudy Fernandez. It also cleared the PF spot to get Aldridge more development time. In the end, I'm pretty happy.

That said, I do sometimes wonder if Pritchard had regrets about that trade once Oden was down and how different last season would have been. On the whole, while I think the Blazers might have won another game or two (and potentially made the playoffs -- ouch), I think I'd still wish for the season we had. I suspect Jones' influence in the locker room, even just for that one year, will have lasting impact. More than that, though, I'm excited about how the rotation looks with Frye and Fernandez in there.

**Schilly** · 07-11-2008, 05:36 PM

People want to ignor the coulds and lead to's.

Ed O · 07-11-2008, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B-Roy

So he has terrible trade value?

What?

Quote:

Knicks won't get more than capspace.

You keep making conclusory statements as if they are some sort of fact or evidence.

You saying that they won't get more than capspace is your opinion, but it's not a fact. I hate to guess about your mindset, but I bet if I had asked you yesterday if the Knicks could get instant cap relief for Zach you'd have said "no".

It appears that that (hypothetical) opinion has been proven incorrect. I believe that your latest "they will get nothing more than capspace" prediction will prove inaccurate, as well.

Quote:

Because by then, they'll have enough pieces (good draft picks).

Two lottery picks is enough to lure LeBron? Wow. Too bad you didn't tell the Clippers. They'd have like a dozen LeBrons by now.

Quote:

Walsh has been trying to shop him and Curry.

I think that the team has been looking to make a lot of changes. Whether Zach has been more actively shopped than most other players (David Lee, for example) is unclear to me.

Quote:

Didn't you admit he has bad value?

Where did I admit he has bad value? He's a good player and his play sets a baseline for his value to a team... as a good player he has value.

Ed O.

PorterIn2004 · 07-11-2008, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schilly

This thread got tired in a hurry.

Agreed. Some of us will likely never see eye to eye on a variety of these moves.

**Schilly** · 07-11-2008, 05:40 PM

and arguing them a year after the fact seems so futile.... TRhough I will pont out we got 10 games better and the knicks got 10 games worse..... I knwo totally unrelated Zach had Nothing to do with it, We woulda won 51 with Zach and the Knicks would won 11 without him.

Ed O · 07-11-2008, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PorterIn2004

Agreed. Some of us will likely never see eye to eye on a variety of these moves.

Fortunately there are about 100,000 other threads that would allow those of you who do not care to read about reevaluating the Randolph trade to leave the rest of us alone.

Ed O.

ABM · 07-11-2008, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minstrel

I wouldn't trade Randolph for nothing but cap relief either.

I realize he's hated here, but he's still a valuable player on the court. He's still one of the better post scorers in the league and a good rebounder. Sure, his defense stinks and he's not a good passer. That's why he's no superstar. That doesn't make him worthless.

In retrospect, Minstrel, Z-Bo is exactly a player I would trade to another team within my own division.

Thread Tools Display Modes

Thread Tools

Display Modes