SI: Knicks are losers of trade deadline

[skflives]

The whole point is that we didn't do enough. We should have found a way to dump Jeffries or Curry's extra year.

[duetta]

Not if the cost was prohibitive. Jeffries does play a role on this club, D'Antoni and Walsh want to remain competitive, and it is within the realm of possibility that Curry will come into camp next season in NBA-ready shape. Patience is a virtue, and Nate is an asset. Given that we still owe a #1 for Me-bury, Walsh is no position to surrender assets in the hope that the tooth fairy will leave Lebron and Wade under his pillow.

[KnicksScholar24]

Anytime you can trade Malik Rose for Chris Wilcox you're a big winner. The Hughes trade seems like a lateral move type trade. NY loses a 6'10 three-point shooter, but if Hughes can play backup PG it would allow Nate to play SG and defend the PG (like the AI/Hughes duo Philly, or like the Collins/Robinson duo could have been in NY).

Larry Hughes did average 22, 6, 5 and 3 stls per game his last year in Washington so there is a slight possibility that he could return playing at an all-star talent caliber level in D'Antoni's system (unlikely though, especially with his minutes and scoring option).

Anyway, anytime you can trade Jerome James you're a big winner. These moves should help increase the chances of the Knicks making the playoffs this year, again, big winner.

[chrbal]

As much as I don't really care for the Knicks, how did they fail.

Trading Jefferies has about a 1 in 100 chance of happening. Trading Curry is like 1 in 10,000. In either trade the Knicks would have had to give up significant pieces to get miscellaneous garbage.

The fact that the Knicks were able to condense to useless players into one player that fits a need (and they all have contracts of the same length (I love that some sites are referring to James as an expiring. My guess is he can't make $6.6 mil any other way then to pick up the option)) is downright amazing.

Then the Knicks trade EXPIRING and done Malik Rose for EXPIRING and useful Chris Wilcox is good small move.

[skflives]

Not if the cost was prohibitive. Jeffries does play a role on this club, D'Antoni and Walsh want to remain competitive, and it is within the realm of possibility that Curry will come into camp next season in NBA-ready shape. Patience is a virtue, and Nate is an asset. Given that we still owe a #1 for Me-bury, Walsh is no position to surrender assets in the hope that the tooth fairy will leave Lebron and Wade under his pillow.

We already gave up Zach Randolph (currently averaging 22 points 9.3 rebounds and 2.4 assists a game with a shooting percentage of almost 50%) for the corpse of Cuttino Mobley and a guy who was later dealt for Larry Hughes in order to make that tooth fairy myth a greater possibility. We traded Jamal Crawford for a player who is 4 inches taller but takes as many 3 pointers for the sake of that 2010 myth. Now you don't want to trade players who probably aren't in our long term plans because of that 2010 myth in order to improve our chances even further? In for a penny then in for a pound. The fact that Jeffries has a role on this team does more to show how horribly flawed the team is than any testament to Jeffries abilities as a player.

[cgf]

Not if the cost was prohibitive. Jeffries does play a role on this club, D'Antoni and Walsh want to remain competitive, and it is within the realm of possibility that Curry will come into camp next season in NBA-ready shape. Patience is a virtue, and Nate is an asset. Given that we still owe a #1 for Me-bury, Walsh is no position to surrender assets in the hope that the tooth fairy will leave Lebron and Wade under his pillow.

We already gave up Zach Randolph (currently averaging 22 points 9.3 rebounds and 2.4 assists a game with a shooting percentage of almost 50%) for the corpse of Cuttino Mobley and a guy who was later dealt for Larry Hughes in order to make that tooth fairy myth a greater possibility. We traded Jamal Crawford for a player who is 4 inches taller but takes as many 3 pointers for the sake of that 2010 myth. Now you don't want to trade players who probably aren't in our long term plans because of that 2010 myth in order to improve our chances even further? In for a penny then in for a pound. The fact that Jeffries has a role on this team does more to show how horribly flawed the team is than any testament to Jeffries abilities as a player.

That in for a penny in for a pound crap is how stupid people try to rationalize there haphazard actions. Donnie Walsh hasn't given up on trading Jeffries and still has another year to do so, if the cost was too high then the right move was to wait. Hell if we don't overpay for lee and nate we'd already be in position to sign lebron without even moving jeffries and curry. Now if Curry shows up to camp and doesn't look like a ball he could very well make him less untradeable and we could probably move him without giving up david lee for a smaller 2010+ contract and an expiring to open up more cap room to build the team up.

[duetta]

We already gave up Zach Randolph (currently averaging 22 points 9.3 rebounds and 2.4 assists a game with a shooting percentage of almost 50%) for the corpse of Cuttino Mobley and a guy who was later dealt for Larry Hughes in order to make that tooth fairy myth a greater possibility. We traded Jamal Crawford for a player who is 4 inches taller but takes as many 3 pointers for the sake of that 2010 myth. Now you don't want to trade players who probably aren't in our long term plans because of that 2010 myth in order to improve our chances even further? In for a penny then in for a pound. The fact that Jeffries has a role on this team does more to show how horribly flawed the team is than any testament to Jeffries abilities as a player.

I would argue that having all that cap room could actually turn out to be a disaster - given the pressure Walsh will be under to spend it. If Lebron ain't coming, and maybe Wade, IMHO, there's nobody worth a MAX contract likely to be on the market. But expectations will be sky high - and some of those may be coming from ownership. Better to assemble a quality group, a group that is on its way to winning, than put all your eggs in the 2010 basket, and have your ultimate success or failure subject to whims of one or two players.

Now that Tim Thomas is gone, it turns out that we traded Channing Frye and Steve Francis for Larry Hughes. Is anyone getting worked up about that? We didn't give up much to get Zack, and we didn't get much back. But we did regain the cap room that Isiah surrendered when acquiring him. As for Crawford, I'll never miss him.