[Camelo Thread Part 6] - Update: NJ tries again Pg. 71

[FieldsMedal]

I think the biggest problem with the deal is the 12 pick. Had we added a pick swap option instead of the pick itself (which may not be that attractive obviously), we would be free to add 2011 pick (ours or Houston's) and 2013 pick in potential Melo deals.

I fully understand the negative repercussions in hindsight, but look at it from Houston's standpoint. Right now, the 2011 pick swap looks like it could very well net Houston nothing, and if that were the case, a 2012 swap would likely net nothing as well.

Paying Jefferies $6.9m this year, with no guarantee of ANY pick-swap return (which would be likely at this stage) just for Jordan Hill seems very, very steep.

Houston had to get back something of guaranteed value back.

[Deeeez Knicks]

Maybe not, but a pick swap (when we were a perenially losing team) and another pick along with Hill was too steep and risky of a price IMO.

I'd understand if people thought the premise of the deal was too risky. I take exception to people who think Houston should have taken Jefferies for less, which is a whole other equation.

It worked out ok so can't hate on the deal, but even Walsh himself questioned it.

Walsh never questioned the specific deal, he generally acknowledged reluctance and the chancy nature of trading a young player/first round pick, which is standard GM speak.

I remember when he made the comments and people spun it so he was outright second-guessing that specific deal. I didn't read it that way at all.

Way I read it he generally doesn't like trading young players and picks. And that's smart, because of the player or pick turn out to be something, then he's on the record acknowledging the risk.

Look up the comments again. I may be wrong/misremembering here, but notice how GENERAL his comments are.

http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nba/ ... id=5604785

But that pick is gone, and the president of the New York Knicks can't stop wondering whether he made a monumental mistake. "I'll second-guess myself forever on that," Walsh said Wednesday in a sitdown with reporters who regularly cover the team. "I think we got something out of it that allowed us to bring in 10 new players. But I didn't like it when I did it. I don't like doing financial trades. They're not basketball trades," Walsh said.

"I was going back and forth on that deal, and I guess I thought the ability to have enough money to get two stars, or get one star and one or two other players, that worked. We got Amare and Felton, so that worked," Walsh said.

"But you always want to keep first-round picks. The '12 pick I didn't like doing. I remember the night before we did it thinking 'I don't like doing this, but we're going to do it.' And I'll second guess myself forever on that."

Sounds pretty specific to me that he is questioning the deal especially since he was asked directly about it. I love Walsh, but I think we did overpay on that one and it was highly risky. Even he acknowledges it. Overall, very happy with the offseason though and it ended up working out well considering no Lebron.

And I don't even think its bad to 2nd guess. I think its good. I just hope that we don't have to pay similar value to shed Turiaf. Yeah, it shouldn't cost as much in theory. Turiaf > Jeffries and AR > Hill But teams could still hold out and try to get similar value and use that deal as basis

[seren]

I thought of the deal as a bad deal as well at the time and questioned it. But after seeing other deals in the summer for cap space, I thought we paid the fair value. I don't know maybe we set the market, but Chicago, Miami, and New Orleans all gave away first round picks to clear cap space. And in some cases players they sent away were way more valuable than Jeffries and Hill.

[FieldsMedal]

http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nba/columns/story?columnist=sheridan_chris&id=5604785

But that pick is gone, and the president of the New York Knicks can't stop wondering whether he made a monumental mistake. "I'll second-guess myself forever on that," Walsh said Wednesday in a sitdown with reporters who regularly cover the team. "I think we got something out of it that allowed us to bring in 10 new players. But I didn't like it when I did it. I don't like doing financial trades. They're not basketball trades," Walsh said.

"I was going back and forth on that deal, and I guess I thought the ability to have enough money to get two stars, or get one star and one or two other players, that worked. We got Amare and Felton, so that worked," Walsh said.

"But you always want to keep first-round picks. The '12 pick I didn't like doing. I remember the night before we did it thinking 'I don't like doing this, but we're going to do it.' And I'll second guess myself forever on that."

Sounds pretty specific to me that he is questioning the deal especially since he was asked directly about it. I love Walsh, but I think we did overpay on that one and it was highly risky. Even he acknowledges it. Overall, very happy with the offseason though and it ended up working out well considering no Lebron.

And I don't even think its bad to 2nd guess. I think its good. I just hope that we don't have to pay similar value to shed Turiaf. Yeah, it shouldn't cost as much in theory. Turiaf > Jeffries and AR > Hill But teams could still hold out and try to get similar value and use that deal as basis

Thanks for looking that up. Yeah, I definitely gravitated towards the "But you always want to keep first-round picks" comment.

I do agree he spoke about the deal (in response) directly, but I still get the same thing from his comments - he doesn't like trading first round picks or financial deals, which is the source of his discomfort with it. I don't get anything from him suggesting he thinks he specifically "overpaid" Houston for what he got back.

Again, I agree it was highly risky, but disagree he overpaid. Not sure how Jefferies is shed without Houston getting something guaranteed besides Hill.

[Dr. Detfink]

Again, I call collusion. League GMs do NOT want a strong NY franchise.

How come?

Stop it, Richard Jefferson...

[FieldsMedal]

Stop it, Richard Jefferson...

Right over my head...

[Deeeez Knicks]

http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nba/columns/story?columnist=sheridan_chris&id=5604785

But that pick is gone, and the president of the New York Knicks can't stop wondering whether he made a monumental mistake. "I'll second-guess myself forever on that," Walsh said Wednesday in a sitdown with reporters who regularly cover the team. "I think we got something out of it that allowed us to bring in 10 new players. But I didn't like it when I did it. I don't like doing financial trades. They're not basketball trades," Walsh said.

"I was going back and forth on that deal, and I guess I thought the ability to have enough money to get two stars, or get one star and one or two other players, that worked. We got Amare and Felton, so that worked," Walsh said.

"But you always want to keep first-round picks. The '12 pick I didn't like doing. I remember the night before we did it thinking 'I don't like doing this, but we're going to do it.' And I'll second guess myself forever on that."

Sounds pretty specific to me that he is questioning the deal especially since he was asked directly about it. I love Walsh, but I think we did overpay on that one and it was highly risky. Even he acknowledges it. Overall, very happy with the offseason though and it ended up working out well considering no Lebron.

And I don't even think its bad to 2nd guess. I think its good. I just hope that we don't have to pay similar value to shed Turiaf. Yeah, it shouldn't cost as much in theory. Turiaf > Jeffries and AR > Hill But teams could still hold out and try to get similar value and use that deal as basis

Thanks for looking that up. Yeah, I definitely gravitated towards the "But you always want to keep first-round picks" comment.

I do agree he spoke about the deal (in response) directly, but I still get the same thing from his comments - he doesn't like trading first round picks or financial deals, which is the source of his discomfort with it. I don't get anything from him suggesting he thinks he specifically "overpaid" Houston for what he got back.

Again, I agree it was highly risky, but disagree he overpaid. Not sure how Jefferies is shed without Houston getting something guaranteed besides Hill.

Yeah, more then anything he hates trading picks.

I'm probably looking at the risk as the same as overpaying. At the time it was impossible to say for sure whether we overpaid or not given all the different conditions and scenarios.

In our worse case we would have highly overpaid. In our best case we get a good deal.

At the time as a paranoid Knick pessimist I was looking at our worse case. Right now, looks like it'll end up being fair value though. So I'll agree that it ended up being fair value, just that it could have been different, but still can't help seeing that worse case scenario (which I think could have easily gone down)

[nykfan70]

I found this interesting comment yesterday during a Chat with Jason Fleming of Hoopsworld.

Zach in Florida:
If the rumors are true and Melo
doesn't want to resign with new jersey do you see him going to ny at the deadline in somewhat of a desperation move? And who's been your most suprising team and player?

Jason Fleming:
As of today there isn't a scenario where he gets traded to NY - I don't see that changing any time soon. The Knicks should just be patient, because Melo's cards are on the table. He is willing to play there for less money, so let him do it.

What if this is true, I mean LBJ and Bosh did something similar in Miami, why not Melo?

[cgmw]

I found this interesting comment yesterday during a Chat with Jason Fleming of Hoopsworld.

Zach in Florida:
If the rumors are true and Melo
doesn't want to resign with new jersey do you see him going to ny at the deadline in somewhat of a desperation move? And who's been your most suprising team and player?

Jason Fleming:
As of today there isn't a scenario where he gets traded to NY - I don't see that changing any time soon. The Knicks should just be patient, because Melo's cards are on the table. He is willing to play there for less money, so let him do it.

What if this is true, I mean LBJ and Bosh did something similar in Miami, why not Melo?

This doesn't mean Melo would take a less-than-max salary from NY. It probably just means that Melo is willing to decline his Player Option, refuse to re-sign with the Nuggs (for more than any other team could offer), wait out the new CBA, then sign a new contract with the Knicks.

Anyway you slice it, Carmelo will earn less money by waiting it out. The only way he gets the full MAX bird-right deal is if he signs an extension, then gets traded.

[K_ick_God]

I wonder if the Nuggets would just settle for a couple of non-lottery picks from the Nets if they can figure out a way to take Al Errington and give back expirings. The Nyets could rent Melo with a hope & a prayer of getting him to stay, while the Nuggets clear Al.

[cgmw]

So....when do we try to trade Turiaf to clear salary? Deadline? Summer?

I think there'll be some maneuvering around the deadline. I hope we don't get held for ransom like the Jeffries trade.

Turiaf + AR for expiring seems like it can happen. I just wish we would play AR just to work up his value and see what he can do.

If it really began to look like Melo is not getting traded by the deadline, we can always ship Turiaf to Orlando for expirings.

Turiaf will decline his option. He signed that contract after heart surgery at a pretty steep discount. If I'm his agent, there's no way I tell him to pick up a $4 mil option next season.

Somebody would give Ronny at least the MLE, and for much longer than just 1 year. Especially for a guy who's injury prone, it's just not advisable to pick up a 1 year option when you've played well enough to earn a multi-year deal elsewhere.

[towelie]

I wonder if the Nuggets would just settle for a couple of non-lottery picks from the Nets if they can figure out a way to take Al Errington and give back expirings. The Nyets could rent Melo with a hope & a prayer of getting him to stay, while the Nuggets clear Al.

I'm perfectly fine if NJ trades for an unextended Melo. I'd be more worried that Melo signs an extension with Denver or Dallas or Houston than he does with NJ. I mean he'll get to see first hand how bad NJ is and how small their fanbase is compared to NY. Melo going to NJ unextended = NY definitely signing him in the summer.

[seren]

So....when do we try to trade Turiaf to clear salary? Deadline? Summer?

I think there'll be some maneuvering around the deadline. I hope we don't get held for ransom like the Jeffries trade.

Turiaf + AR for expiring seems like it can happen. I just wish we would play AR just to work up his value and see what he can do.

If it really began to look like Melo is not getting traded by the deadline, we can always ship Turiaf to Orlando for expirings.

Turiaf will decline his option. He signed that contract after heart surgery at a pretty steep discount. If I'm his agent, there's no way I tell him to pick up a $4 mil option next season.

Somebody would give Ronny at least the MLE, and for much longer than just 1 year. Especially for a guy who's injury prone, it's just not advisable to pick up a 1 year option when you've played well enough to earn a multi-year deal elsewhere.

Hmmmm. Do you even realize your inconsistency? You claim Melo would not risk losing money with the new CBA and would sign that extension no matter? While Turiaf will opt out of a guaranteed contract and risk the new CBA in which MLE may never exist?

[moocow007]

I wonder if the Nuggets would just settle for a couple of non-lottery picks from the Nets if they can figure out a way to take Al Errington and give back expirings. The Nyets could rent Melo with a hope & a prayer of getting him to stay, while the Nuggets clear Al.

I wouldn't see that Walsh would have a problem taking Harrington back if the Nuggets needed to move him that badly and still offer Denver more than just a couple non-lottery picks. So it could still come down to Denver biting off it's nose to spite its face.

[K_ick_God]

I wonder if the Nuggets would just settle for a couple of non-lottery picks from the Nets if they can figure out a way to take Al Errington and give back expirings. The Nyets could rent Melo with a hope & a prayer of getting him to stay, while the Nuggets clear Al.

I wouldn't see that Walsh would have a problem taking Harrington back if the Nuggets needed to move him that badly and still offer Denver more than just a couple non-lottery picks. So it could still come down to Denver biting off it's nose to spite its face.

I think you're right. But I still wouldn't want Harrington back. It's kind of an emotional deal-breaker for me. One of the most pleasant things about this season is not having to see Harrington in a Knicks uniform. The guy infuriates me.

[cgmw]

Hmmmm. Do you even realize your inconsistency? You claim Melo would not risk losing money with the new CBA and would sign that extension no matter? While Turiaf will opt out of a guaranteed contract and risk the new CBA in which MLE may never exist?

So you're saying Turiaf was offered an extension, but turned it down?!?!? Wow! I was not aware of that development.

If the Knicks offered a multi-year lucrative extension to Turiaf (like the Nuggs did to Melo), Turiaf would sign it, bro.

But as it stands, both guys would be smart to decline the final year of their current contracts IMO. How is that inconsistent?

[seren]

Hmmmm. Do you even realize your inconsistency? You claim Melo would not risk losing money with the new CBA and would sign that extension no matter? While Turiaf will opt out of a guaranteed contract and risk the new CBA in which MLE may never exist?

So you're saying Turiaf was offered an extension, but turned it down?!?!? Wow! I was not aware of that development.

If the Knicks offered a multi-year lucrative extension to Turiaf (like the Nuggs did to Melo), Turiaf would sign it, bro.

But as it stands, both guys would be smart to decline the final year of their current contracts IMO. How is that inconsistent?

Nope. You said Melo will not risk to become an FA this summer because he would lose money with new CBA. That is what you claimed. Guess what? Turiaf may never get a contract above minimum if the mid-level exception is gone. Melo at least knows that he will get the max no matter what the new max is.

[J9Starks3]

I think you're right. But I still wouldn't want Harrington back. It's kind of an emotional deal-breaker for me. One of the most pleasant things about this season is not having to see Harrington in a Knicks uniform. The guy infuriates me.

No emotional deal breakers KG ... whatever to make this team a championship contender. Much like I would hate to give up Gallo or Chandler for Melo, because emotionally I like them... at the end of the day you do whats best for your team. If that means taking Al back, so be it.

[Dr. Detfink]

the Nuggets ain't talking until the Brooklyn Nyets offer 4 first rounders along with Favors BUT Nyets ain't biting unless Melo commits to a long term contract...and THAT ain't happening cause the Knicks are closer to contention than the Nyets.

[moocow007]

I wonder if the Nuggets would just settle for a couple of non-lottery picks from the Nets if they can figure out a way to take Al Errington and give back expirings. The Nyets could rent Melo with a hope & a prayer of getting him to stay, while the Nuggets clear Al.

I wouldn't see that Walsh would have a problem taking Harrington back if the Nuggets needed to move him that badly and still offer Denver more than just a couple non-lottery picks. So it could still come down to Denver biting off it's nose to spite its face.

I think you're right. But I still wouldn't want Harrington back. It's kind of an emotional deal-breaker for me. One of the most pleasant things about this season is not having to see Harrington in a Knicks uniform. The guy infuriates me.

I hear you but assuming the Knicks do end up dealing several of their current forwards (Gallinari, Chandler or Randolph) they will need depth there. Harrington does provide that and his ability to score also would work for our offense-centric system.

Personally, while I obviously don't believe that Harrington is a stud, I don't think he's as bad as people have made him out to be and that he has pluses as well as minuses to his game. He was, for all intents and purposes, forced into being the Knicks primary offensive option for most of his tenure hear cause they lacked better options (sad as it is to say). A role that he wasn't ideally suited for.

What he is suited for is a off the bench guy that can give you points in a hurry and who isn't afraid to compete. But if it turns out to not work the Knicks, being that they will be over the cap in the Melo scenario for the length of Harringtons contract, can either trade him (his contract is not terrible) or cut him. Harrington can be useful in the right situation.