These Trades Aren't "Win-Win"

TheBluest · Post #1 » by **TheBluest** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:39 am

I hope everyone can see this now.

None of these trades were made with the intent to lose more than we win. Since we don't quite lose enough we aren't reaping the benefits of the opposite end of the spectrum. So when someone says WALSHED UP is a Godfather because his trades are "Win-Win" is contrary to the desired results. Out of the 5 players traded for(Tits, Cat, PUGHE, NOT SHARRINGTON FREE CANDY, Chrissy) only 2 appear they could contribute right away 1 of them getting in the way quite often, while the other marinated. The other 3...1 medically disabled, another stinks like a hot mess on hot garbage, and the last... content with not dunking the ball just as much as he is dunking the ball.

Have/Will any of them increased their trade value? Have any of them helped produce more wins? Have any of them made their teammates better? Have any of them stunted the proper development of our younger players?

Post #2 » by **mjhp911** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:45 am

Pughes is not looking so good now. But I certainly understand, and agree with the move. It's also still early. Wilcox is already giving dividends... I don't think he's had a shot blocked by the rim yet... and You Can Call Me AL has already taken the chair out of someone (last game, I forget who)...

EDIT: the ZBo trade was still awful though, but I still do like the Harrington deal.

TheBluest · Post #3 » by **TheBluest** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:53 am

mjhp911 wrote:Pughes is not looking so good now. But I certainly understand, and agree with the move. It's also still early. Wilcox is already giving dividends... I don't think he's had a shot blocked by the rim yet... and You Can Call Me AL has already taken the chair out of someone (last game, I forget who)...

Tim>>>>>>PUGHES as has been mentioned quite often. James should have been bought out. The Agenda is to make the playoff therefore you keep Tits. If you fear losing Nate in FA then work a S&T with the team to fill the void with player or assets. Preferably asset route in the form of Low pick and TE for whatever he signs for and use the TE on a 1yr summer deal for a more useful player. Skip To My Larry Lou Pughe's contract is going nowhere next yr. Wilcox too early but once again what role does he really have? He doesn't block shots he's a mediocre rebounder. Al tries but regardless he's in the way.

Post #4 » by **mjhp911** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:56 am

Skip To My Larry Lou Pughe's

LOL, oh man, you're going to kill me one of these days, Blue...

Neb · Post #5 » by **Neb** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 8:29 am

He will? Really?

Smoke24 · Post #6 » by **Smoke24** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 8:30 am

mjhp911 wrote:
Skip To My Larry Lou Pughe's

LOL, oh man, you're going to kill me one of these days, Blue...

If he does, can I have your job? :lol:

OoAnd1 · Post #7 » by **OoAnd1** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 8:39 am

TheBluest wrote:I hope everyone can see this now.

None of these trades were made with the intent to lose more than we win. Since we don't quite lose enough we aren't reaping the benefits of the opposite end of the spectrum. So when someone says WALSHED UP is a Godfather because his trades are "Win-Win" is contrary to the desired results. Out of the 5 players traded for(Tits, Cat, PUGHE, NOT SHARRINGTON FREE CANDY, Chrissy) only 2 appear they could contribute right away 1 of them getting in the way quite often, while the other marinated. The other 3...1 medically disabled, another stinks like a hot mess on hot garbage, and the last... content with not dunking the ball just as much as he is dunking the ball.

Have/Will any of them increased their trade value? Have any of them helped produce more wins? Have any of them made their teammates better? Have any of them stunted the proper development of our younger players?

A HOF Knickname.

R-DAWG · Post #8 » by **R-DAWG** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:13 am

Of the 5 players traded for, Harrington, Mobley and TT were acquired with the purpose of clearing cap space for 2010. Sure i would've perfered to get Camby back and if Donnie pushed a little harder, maybe offered a 2nd rd pick or something, it probally could've happend (and camby is definatly worth a 2nd rd pick and having him on the team would've been HUGE). The Hughes deal, worst case, he does not play well and you release him next year. The deal also opened up 2 roster spots and moved weight in Jerome James and Roberson. Best case, he fills the void we have at shooting guard and upgrades our perimeter defense. I'm not writing him off yet, he has looked bad, but remember he hadn't played in a month and is still getting into game shape. As for Wilcox, an athletic big man, best case, he helps us this year. Worst case, he leaves as a UFA and all we lost is Malik Rose, who didnt play and would've left as a UFA in the summer.

The only mistake I think Walsh made was not pushing a package of Nate and Curry for expirings. I'm sure Sac would've done a Nate/Curry for Thomas/Moore deal. Would've cleared an additonal $11.8m in cap space and then the possibility of 2 max guys in 2010 is real. As we all know, there is no way to resign Lee and Nate and still add a max player without moving Jeffries or Curry. And swaping Jeffries for Songalia and saving $2m is not going to make that possible. And if we wanted to bring Nate back in the offseason, we could've offered him the full MLE, and since Curry's $11.2m would be gone, we could afford to sign Nate to the full MLE, Lee to a $10m deal, and still have enough room for a max guy. Thats the only mistake i think Walsh made. (and Gallo over Eric Gordon, but time will tell on that one)

cgf · Post #9 » by **cgf** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:06 pm

R-DAWG wrote:As we all know, there is no way to resign Lee and Nate and still add a max player without moving Jeffries or Curry. And swaping Jeffries for Songalia and saving $2m is not going to make that possible.

Curry - 11.2
Songalia - 4
Gallo - 3
Chandler- 2
Lee - 8.4 ($42mil/5years)
nate - 5.5 ($30mil/5years)
1st rounder - 2
cap holds - 2

= 38.6 mil

if the cap goes down to 56, that's still enough for a max fa.

boomann21 · Post #10 » by **boomann21** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:09 pm

What really has my face twisted is now when you really think about it, we traded Zach Randolph and Mardy Collins who both were beasting on the Celtics last night for freakin LARRY HUGHES. I mean it makes me sick to my stomach and nautious too.

Blades Finest · Post #11 » by **Blades Finest** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:14 pm

Even "No Sharrington" had his rut as a Knick..the only bad thing about trades is the period of time following that where team chemistry is at its worst and the incoming players lack the confidence and knowledge to thrive in a new team's system. I'd give Hughes another 2 weeks. But I'd prefer having him play the 2 than seeing Tim shoot up blanks over guys 6" shorter than him...his last game as a knick playing against the Spurs was sickening. Wilcox is thriving b/c a not of pressure is on him to "thrive"..we just need quality minutes out of him.

Paeds · Post #12 » by **Paeds** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:19 pm

hmmm, trades are evaluated on a 1 week basis now?

cgf · Post #13 » by **cgf** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:43 pm

I think these trades are win-win. We we've been under-manned all season and now d'antoni finally has enough guys to have options. Gallo will earn his minutes and be a better player for it, Mike D is a real coach, not "what's a gameplan" isiah thomas doing things all willy-nilly.

As for Hughes I'll be the first to acknowledge his shot selection is truly terrible very often, but let's at least let him get his game going before running him out of the building. But we were winning games with craw, who's never seen a bad shot he didn't like, so the key is getting chemistry and working around that, plus if he can start droppin threes like he was for the bulls before getting benched he'll be just fine in our offense.