Knicks, Nets, Kings, and Heat

shagadelic45 · Post #21 » by **shagadelic45** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:38 pm

BBallFreak...good enough for you now?

Post #22 » by **BBallFreak** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:44 pm

It's better. You save us $4.5 million as opposed to costing us $9 million before, but the same problem exists. This is neither a rebuilding trade nor a win now trade, IMO. I'd still probably pass as I think we need to rebuild...

Flash is the Future · Post #23 » by **Flash is the Future** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:06 am

Jared Jeffries is why I'd say no. His contract is one year too long.

bringinhinkie · Post #24 » by **bringinhinkie** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:45 am

lol at people who take this guys trade ideas serious, they are literally like 30 player trades.. cmon man i know you love posting trade ideas but at least keep them to like 3-4 players/team incoming/outgoing, even trades with that many players ar extremely uncommon..

Post #25 » by **moocow007** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:00 am

shagadelic45 wrote:^^^^^^^ Ok, I think i ammended it to satisfy all........

You forgot to satisfy the Knicks.

Dude...NY supposedly already turned down Balkman and Robinson for Artest. And Balkman and Robinson are viewed as lower on the totem pole than David Lee. NY also prefers Artest over Bibby if they had to choose (and the rumors of NY's offer for Bibby centered around Marbury and probably NY taking Kenny Thomas). At not point do Lee, Balkman or Robinson come into play and yet you have them all in there and somehow this is good for NY?

Nobody wants Kenny Thomas especially if they have to give up young players with promise, not for a half year rental on a borderline personality or a PG that's coming off major injury who will expire at the end of next season (since the goal for NY is to find and keep a PG).