Greenie wrote: thebuzzardman wrote:
I didn't think I was bragging about anything. I mean at worst it gave Rose a shot to see what he had for one year. Got out of the extra year of Calderon contract. And got a second round pick in the deal. I absolutely would not brag about the deal, didn't think I was. However I don't think it was a bad deal either.
Lopez has had two great games don't get me wrong. That however shouldn't outweigh the year he had. Hopefully we are able to bring back Holiday on a somewhat friendly deal and take a shot at a kid in the second round.
I will obviously not be pleased if they bring back Rose, thats for sure. 1 year experiment that failed.
My take on that trade:
Got us out of the year of Calderon
Flipped Lopez (A good, but not great C) for an expiring (Rose) getting out 2 years of his deal (which like half the board hated at first)
A chance to kick the tires on Rose
Taken by itself, this is a pretty good move, BUT
Totally negated by signing Noah to a a) large deal and b) long deal
*edit - or was it a year of Lopez's deal, just like Calderon? In any event, that deal shed a good deal of Salary a year early. I think that in and of itself makes it a good deal. Again, totally negated by the Noah deal, and even to an extent the CLee deal, as he's not a difference making guard.
Also, up for criticism is that the trade allowed us to kick the tires on Rose, and same with Jennings 1 year, but now leaves the team with NO PG's, though of course the non long term commitment is good. Sort of forces Knicks to PG in the draft though, and while it's hard to knock the idea of pairing a quality young PG with KP for years, it's a roll of the dice one will be there and the team will be bad enough to get one (maybe it was, or may have just missed being bad enough). Still, best for a team to be comfortably in "Take BPA" every time.
Jose was expiring. We were getting out of him regardless.
Lopez's contract was just fine and could have been moved later on by itself to a center needy team since we still would have had Willy and O'Quinn.
We could have done EVERYTHING we did with the exception of Noah and been a much better team.
Hell, we could have signed BOTH Bev and Jennings to compete for the starting job with Jose and Grant still here.
We could have taken our money and spent it on Beverly, Lee and Booker while bringing Willy over.
The goal should have been to become a better defensive team with better shooters while gaining some depth on the bench.
Phil doesn't know what he's doing.
Those three question marks would have been for dudes like Baker.
Those deals are OK. Maybe we could have dealt Lopez, maybe not. Funny what a difference two years makes when so much of this board was crying over how overpaid Lopez was.
Plus, you are assuming Lopez nets a pick, but the Knicks would have to take back salary. Well, hopefully whoever wanted/needed him in your hypothetical scenario and was willing to trade a #1, ALSO just happened to have 14+million in expiring contracts laying around.
But, again, this is just the deal by itself. Could other actions have happened? Sure. But then again, some of the same actions you have above could have happened if NO NOAH.
The deal was ok. NOAH was horrific. Sorry if Phil can't get a smidge of credit even while getting bashed. If that's they way it's going to be, then: Melo is vastly overrated.