Carmelo Anthony Thread (Merging)

[JoeHova]

Also, I'm not sure who was taken with those picks, but if you can let me know I'll sure discuss about that.

Wayne Ellington & Jonny Flynn.

(Boston previously had acquired Minnesota's pick in the Ricky Davis trade. Boston gave it back to them in the KG deal, which is why it ended up being such a high pick. A similar thing happened this summer when Miami gave Toronto their first-round pick back in the Bosh sign-and-trade. Miami had acquired it in the Jermaine O'Neal trade.)

[Petro45]

There's just as much risk, if not more, in hoping draft picks pan out. Let's take the guy who already panned out.

Not true. The best players in the NBA...the vast majority of the elite...were taken with top 5 picks. And those teams had a 4 year window of rook contracts. Paying those guys far below their talent value...which means also having cap space. Teams that overpay for ONE big name before they can support him? And give away the piece to get better later? They have a LOOOOOOOONG history of perfectly medicore.

We've exchanged posts on this before. The fact that most great players were top 5 picks does not = the typical top 5 pick is likely to be a great player. All roses are red does not = all red flowers are roses.

I forget the exact analysis I did before, but looking at the last 10 years of top 5 picks a pretty small number turned out to even be all-stars, much less superstars. And that's with the Carmelo-Wade-LeBron-Bosh (and Darko!) class inflating the numbers.

Sucking and trying to land a superstar in the draft is a gamble. Maybe it's a better gamble than getting Carmelo and hoping to luck into another star, but it's a gamble nonetheless. Also, bear in mind that we only have 2 more years of Brook at this contract before we have to pay through the nose to keep him - we only have a limited time to try to sign a superstar via free agency.

Again, not saying I'm definitely in favor of the trade - only time will tell. But we have a window closing, so there are some justifications for going into "try to win now" mode. As others have said, the key difference between this and the Knicks is that if it doesn't work out, we can dump Carmelo and try rebuilding again in a couple of years -- the Knicks, who were far over the cap with unloadable terrible contracts for mediocre players, never had that option.

The beauty of building through the draft is that it's not really a gamble, it's a cheap investment on the future, if it doesn't pan out, you can release the player after their contract is up. However, when it comes to trading and signing, it's a much more expensive investment, in this case fo example, if we get Melo he will have to sign an extension, and that extension will take out 40% of our cap, now how are suppose to contend against the superfriends and the Lakers when we're going to need:

a)Another superstar, possibly 2
b)fill out the rest of the roster spots

You ignored a key part of my post. We are going to have to pay through the nose in two years to keep Brook. So if our goal is to keep Brook, find another stud in the draft, AND still have any cap flexibility to make necessary moves, we'll need to land that "superstar" in the next two years. That's a pretty big gamble.

If we didn't have Brook, and had a four or five year horizon where we could build through the draft without having to worry about losing cap space to re-sign one of our supposed building blocks, that would be an entirely different situation, and I would be 100% opposed to this trade (versus unsure about it, which is my current status). But you have to acknowledge that we have a window here, or you're being disingenuous.

[Netaman]

You ignored a key part of my post. We are going to have to pay through the nose in two years to keep Brook. So if our goal is to keep Brook, find another stud in the draft, AND still have any cap flexibility to make necessary moves, we'll need to land that "superstar" in the next two years. That's a pretty big gamble.

If we didn't have Brook, and had a four or five year horizon where we could build through the draft without having to worry about losing cap space to re-sign one of our supposed building blocks, that would be an entirely different situation, and I would be 100% opposed to this trade (versus unsure about it, which is my current status). But you have to acknowledge that we have a window here, or you're being disingenuous.

Bingo. It's pretty simple. If you believe in Brook as a cornerstone max player - capable of being one of the top 3 centers in the NBA and a top 20 player - then this trade becomes a lot more about adding another building block. As opposed to the "Knicksian" way of compiling pieces just for the sake of having names.

[mikhailjordan]

Please don't ever compare Carmelo to the players the Knicks acquired ever again. I've been holding my tongue but at this point in time I am insulted by some of the posts in this thread.

Vacuum logic works in a vacuum but the real world is not a vacuum.

Its not the players...its the direction and the timing. Why does everything need to explained to you over and over????

Just because you get a better player...doesnt mean it not the same type of deal when it costs you much more in assets and TWICE the salary...or close to 40% of your cap...and you now have serious limits how to improve from there.

You have never held your tongue. And ANY kind of logic is better than your complete lack of it.

As long as we're clear that this same situation will arise next year if Carmelo is not traded. Whatever floats your boat Dyson. Also for the record I use real world logic. I just don't force my beliefs and opinions on others even when they're wrong... Unless of course they're an Allen Iverson fan because in that case they deserve to be punished.

[TheNetsFan]

You ignored a key part of my post. We are going to have to pay through the nose in two years to keep Brook. So if our goal is to keep Brook, find another stud in the draft, AND still have any cap flexibility to make necessary moves, we'll need to land that "superstar" in the next two years. That's a pretty big gamble.

If we didn't have Brook, and had a four or five year horizon where we could build through the draft without having to worry about losing cap space to re-sign one of our supposed building blocks, that would be an entirely different situation, and I would be 100% opposed to this trade (versus unsure about it, which is my current status). But you have to acknowledge that we have a window here, or you're being disingenuous.

Now this I agree with. I don't get the CP3 speculation. With Melo on the roster & Lopez hitting restricted FA in 2012, I don't see how we can afford to sign CP3. CP3 shouldn't be in the equationas a FA, and I don't think he's attainable via trade, because we won't have the assets to land him in 2011. 2011 FA is when we can do damage, and then go over the cap in 2012 to retain Lopez in 2012 using Bird Rights. As we stand after this deal, I believe we should have about $9mil in cap space, much more if we can dump Outlaw. Next offseason will have a good number of quality restricted FAs with a few aging, but good unrestricted FAs. It's PF heavy, but theoretically, we could overpay on an offer sheet for a PG like Brooks.

[vincecarter4pres]

Boston offered much more for KG then we are offering for Melo currently.

Absolutely false.

I posted the trade details earlier, how can you say we are offering the same?

I don't think anyone has, we're offering a boatload more!

They gave up 7 players KG (5 of which were legit NBA talent), how is that even remotely close to our offer?

They gave up a decent prospect in Al Jefferson, 2 draft picks and a bunch of absolute junk, of which not all was expiring.
It also has to be noted that one of the 1st rounders was just Minny's own pick returned, which although very valuable to a team attempting a rebuild, is also flatout required. If Boston didn't have Minny's pick to begin with it would have been 1 draft pick going to Minny and it's arguable that if any other team owned one of Minny's upcoming picks they never would have traded KG at all until resecuring said pick.

We are offering 5 (only 3 of which are legit) and are getting back Melo + a decent backup pg who is still young and has potential. Thats not a bad offer at all.

It wouldn't be a bad offer if Melo was locked up on a reasonable contract for a few years and 28 teams were bidding on him. In the specific situation that has arisen it's a definite overpay of epic proportions.
You can hate on Terrence Williams all you want, but even considering the obvious that he isn't the prospect Favors is, he is still a very talented and sought after prospect with a high ceiling.
Also, if Favors ultimately had to be included because maybe Denver likes Gallo and/or Randolph better then a Favors-less package, there is no reason we should have to include any draft picks and Augustin or Billups coming back to us is a flatout must if Devin is outgoing.

Add to this a team like Chicago is refusing to include Joakim freakin' Noah and the Knix are reportedly only offering one of either Gallo or AR plus their 2014 1st rounder and not both prospects and how can't you understand how this is outbidding ourselves?!!!

A lot of it is in the details like i said before.

No all of it is in the obvious, but you're too obtuse and ignorant to understand that.

For example if we dont Augustin the deal becomes worse, if we give up an extra pick it becomes worse.

About the first thing we've agreed on since you came from ND...

But the center package is just fine.

No, no it really isn't. Well yes it is, for Denver. Matter of fact they're probably trying to sell Melo on the Bricks harder then Cory Booker would.

And at this point i just want Melo so i dont even care about the details anymore.

That's been obvious from the start.
I mean you're the guy that was adamantly pulling for a deal of Favors, Brook Lopez and pure cap space for Danny Granger and Roy Hobbert...

[SpeedyG]

The fact that there's a MASSIVE debate, both from New Jersey fans and non-Nets fans on whether this is a good trade for the Nets should tell you exactly what it is.

It speaks volumes when the fans of the team giving up the All-Star player is more thrilled about the deal than the fans of the team getting an All-Star.

[vincecarter4pres]

You ignored a key part of my post. We are going to have to pay through the nose in two years to keep Brook. So if our goal is to keep Brook, find another stud in the draft, AND still have any cap flexibility to make necessary moves, we'll need to land that "superstar" in the next two years. That's a pretty big gamble.

If we didn't have Brook, and had a four or five year horizon where we could build through the draft without having to worry about losing cap space to re-sign one of our supposed building blocks, that would be an entirely different situation, and I would be 100% opposed to this trade (versus unsure about it, which is my current status). But you have to acknowledge that we have a window here, or you're being disingenuous.

This is completely backwards and false.
IF you want to extend that window of caproom to play with you keep the roster stocked with cheap young talent on rookie contracts, not trade for Moby Dick sized deals as fast as possible out of panic.

Yes Brook will have to be extended, but we can dump guys like Farmar, Petro and Outlaw and of course Devin over the course of coming seasons, reopening that cap space if needed, all while having a ton of young assets on rookie deals.

Add to this the strong possibility that we would be back in the playoffs in one or two more seasons, not 4 or 5, if our current young studs are worth their wait and the added one or two high lottery pick in the mix pan even half way out, so it's not even like we were going to be some Clippers/Grizzlies abomination for the next decade.

What we do with a Melo trade is create a window, not close an existing one that isn't even there to begin with, ESPECIALLY with the Miami cHeat and about 3 to 6 other very strong teams that either already are, or will become pretty legit contenders.

Please think the situation through before jumping the gun.

[mikhailjordan]

The fact that there's a MASSIVE debate, both from New Jersey fans and non-Nets fans on whether this is a good trade for the Nets should tell you exactly what it is.

It speaks volumes when the fans of the team giving up the All-Star player is more thrilled about the deal than the fans of the team getting an All-Star.

Wouldn't go that far --->

Player A has a good game, fans of player A's team: YEAH THIS GUY IS AWESOME HE'S THE NEXT MAGIC!

Player A gets traded, fans of player A's team: YOU KNOW WHAT? PLAYER A WASN'T THAT GOOD TO BEGIN WITH, THANK GOD HE'S GONE!

<--- It happens all the time and you know it.

There's also the fact that if this deal went down two of the biggest fanbases on this forum (Bricks, Bulls) would be bitter as hell.

So of course a number of non-Nets fans are going to argue this is a bad deal. They need to defend their front office's moves.

[kmsmith5]

Look at that team and tell me who our PF is?

Not just that, but if we go after a Paul or Deron, how are we suppose to fill up the rest of the roster?

Make an offer to Horford. If it's matched re-sign Murphy for one year. Use Murphy's expiring at deadline along with picks and players depending on value(TWill, James, Morrow, Outlaw) to get Paul or DWill if they are available.

I'm only trying to show that cap space is not completely compromised with this proposed deal. I'm not saying it's ideal, just manageable.

[Joel Embust]

I got banned for posting "my condolences" on the Knicks board.

[vincecarter4pres]

I got banned for posting "my condolences" on the Knicks board.

Lol, I figured it was a Knix related violation.

Them dudes are crazy sensitive over there.

It's not fair, but you should have known better and at least it was only a 1 day suspension...

[SpeedyG]

The fact that there's a MASSIVE debate, both from New Jersey fans and non-Nets fans on whether this is a good trade for the Nets should tell you exactly what it is.

It speaks volumes when the fans of the team giving up the All-Star player is more thrilled about the deal than the fans of the team getting an All-Star.

Wouldn't go that far --->

Player A has a good game, fans of player A's team: YEAH THIS GUY IS AWESOME HE'S THE NEXT MAGIC!

Player A gets traded, fans of player A's team: YOU KNOW WHAT? PLAYER A WASN'T THAT GOOD TO BEGIN WITH, THANK GOD HE'S GONE!

<--- It happens all the time and you know it.

There's also the fact that if this deal went down two of the biggest fanbases on this forum (Bricks, Bulls) would be bitter as hell.

So of course a number of non-Nets fans are going to argue this is a bad deal. They need to defend their front office's moves.

Most of those fans aren't Bulls/Knicks fans though. And, similarly, just look at this Nets board or even *gasp* Netsdaily. MASSIVE split on whether deal is good or not. When Gasol was traded, was there any doubt who got the better deal? When Carter was traded? When Kidd was traded to the Nets? When KG? Allen?

A good trade is, often, a good trade and can be seen as such right away (barring unforeseen circumstances of course, such as injuries that derail the players after the deal is done).

The fact that it is being highly contested from both sides (pros or cons) on the side of the Nets means its not a slam dunk. If King wasn't trading every single valuable asset we have on this deal, I'd be more inclined to sit here and say "ok, ok, I see where he's going with this..." but according to reports, which of course can change...we are giving up:

Favors, Devin Harris, our first, and the GSW first. Using up all of those saps us out of our resources for another deal. What becomes our best asset then? Twill and Murph's expiring? Nowhere near enough to land us a Paul or Deron or whoever.

And as others have stated, the problem here is that we are bidding against ourselves. With Chicago unwilling to part with Noah, and NY's offer already been shut down...why give the farm? Besides, King is going through this all wrong.

We shouldn't be trying to convince Denver to trade with us. We should be trying to convince CARMELO to sign with us FIRST. Had they done so and Carmelo put us in his official list or say "I want to go to NJ...make it happen", then the pressure goes to the Nuggets. Make the deal happen, accepting a relatively decent deal of young prospects from the Nets, or risk getting nothing at the end of the season.

[demens]

I honestly don't see how you don't get we had the best offer on the table before yesterday on Melo's list of teams he'd prefer to be traded to.

What was the offer before yesterday? Any discussion about a Melo trade always involved Favors, only delusional Net fans could think you can swap out Favor for Twitt or James. The offer always involved draft picks and it still does. And the offer always involved an exp. which technically it still does. You think Denver is adamant about who that exp. is, whether its Murphy or AK. You ever consider the possibility trading Devin rather then Murphy is the preference on THE NETS END? I dont see how it matters for Denver, and i dont see any sense in doing the Bobcats a favor either. What i do see is the Nets getting rid of a long term deal that Harris has and holding on to an exp with Murphy. Maybe to go after Parker next off season (and i think he would jump at the offer to play with Melo in NYC), maybe for something else.

[jman3134]

The fact that there's a MASSIVE debate, both from New Jersey fans and non-Nets fans on whether this is a good trade for the Nets should tell you exactly what it is.

It speaks volumes when the fans of the team giving up the All-Star player is more thrilled about the deal than the fans of the team getting an All-Star.

I don't think it really says all that much. Nuggets fans are thrilled because Melo wants out and they are in a poor position if he just walks away from their team. (/they're playing with a guy who doesn't want to be there) The Nets will be in the same situation if he fails to embrace this team. So obviously whether or not the trade goes through is dependent on Melo.

[jman3134]

You made one point which I agree in which is why I don't want this trade. The superfriends down in Miami. Let's be honest here, either them, the Lakers, Celtics (maybe this is their last year), and Orlando are going to be the one contending. Now, IMO we should just let them contend and let us just be pure **** for the next couple of years. With that we can have a young core in place that can compete for the play-offs, like what Portland did. We'll have Brook further along, with Twill, hopefully Favors pans out as well as James and we'll have 2 or 3 more high draft picks depending on GSW. After that is accomplished, then go out and get a Chris Paul or Deron from free agency.

Okay, so you are substituting Chris Paul and or Deron Williams for Melo? That just proves that your argument is centered around your personal disdain for the guy and little more. Maybe it's not disdain. Maybe you just don't want Melo on the Nets for some undisclosed reason. But, it really does not make it justified.

If you want your team to suck because other teams are good, it really does not justify your position. Or if you simply want a slow rebuilding process, there are no pieces in place to assure anyone that the Nets can become the new Blazers. Wouldn't you rather at least be competitive?

[vincecarter4pres]

Question, if it were available, do you do a draft night trade of the 3rd overall and salary filler(IE, no Terrence Williams, Courtney Lee or future picks) for Carmelo Anthony?

I mean you're pretty much conceding on Lebron in this scenario, but you would have Melo and more then max cap space...

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1003587&start=150

I would be open to trading for Melo but it'll take more than the #3 + Filler to get him.

Question, if it were available, do you do a draft night trade of the 3rd overall and salary filler(IE, no Terrence Williams, Courtney Lee or future picks) for Carmelo Anthony?

Of course.

I mean you're pretty much conceding on Lebron in this scenario, but you would have Melo and more then max cap space...

Not necessarily...there's an opening at PF that Lebron could fill.

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1003587&start=165


We only touched on it briefly in that thread, but it's kind of ironic...

[demens]

Boston offered much more for KG then we are offering for Melo currently.

Absolutely false.

no.

I posted the trade details earlier, how can you say we are offering the same?

I don't think anyone has, we're offering a boatload more!

no.

They gave up 7 players KG (5 of which were legit NBA talent), how is that even remotely close to our offer?

They gave up a decent prospect in Al Jefferson, 2 draft picks and a bunch of absolute junk, of which not all was expiring.
It also has to be noted that one of the 1st rounders was just Minny's own pick returned, which although very valuable to a team attempting a rebuild, is also flatout required. If Boston didn't have Minny's pick to begin with it would have been 1 draft pick going to Minny and it's arguable that if any other team owned one of Minny's upcoming picks they never would have traded KG at all until resecuring said pick.

1st off, what kind of prospect is Favors? Because i dont hear many people refer to him as a "decent" prospect, many think he is a top prospect. And if Favors is a top prospect, at the time Jefferson was a top prospect x2. To boil it down as if he was some decent young scrub (like Noah for example) is ridiculous.

What nonsense are you taking about the picks? What difference does it make whether the pick originally belonged to Minny? It belong to Boston at the time of the trade, and they traded TWO picks. What the hell do you means "its flat out required", whenever there is a trade and 1 team owns a pick that used to belong to another its required they give it back? WHatt? And if they dont have that teams pick then they dont have to give them any pick at all? Do you realize how that sounds?

Al jeff, 2 picks already is equal to Harris, Favors, 1 pick. On top of that Boston gave up Ratlif exp. which we are NOT doing. And they gave up a 10ppg bench scorer/rotation guy which we are NOT doing. They also gave a 22 year old former lotto pick which we are NOT doing. What we are doing is getting BACK a 22 year old former lotto pick.

errence Williams all you want, but even considering the obvious that he isn't the prospect Favors is, he is still a very talented and sought after prospect with a high ceiling. .

Nonsense.

For example if we dont Augustin the deal becomes worse, if we give up an extra pick it becomes worse.

About the first thing we've agreed on since you came from ND...

Yeah sure, too bad you can't search for the phrase "i actually agree with demens" because you would find a **** of them by you. and one where i say you should maybe lose the actually at some point.

But the center package is just fine.

No, no it really isn't. Well yes it is, for Denver. Matter of fact they're probably trying to sell Melo on the Bricks harder then Cory Booker would.

I guess thats why the latest report says they are still trying to convince Melo to stay or wait to see if other teams better the offer.

That's been obvious from the start.
I mean you're the guy that was adamantly pulling for a deal of Favors, Brook Lopez and pure cap space for Danny Granger and Roy Hobbert...

[/quote]

Which would have been a good deal. I am also more then willing to trade Brook for Melo, although the package would not include Devin or Favors.

[treiz]

Also, I'm not sure who was taken with those picks, but if you can let me know I'll sure discuss about that.

Wayne Ellington & Jonny Flynn.

(Boston previously had acquired Minnesota's pick in the Ricky Davis trade. Boston gave it back to them in the KG deal, which is why it ended up being such a high pick. A similar thing happened this summer when Miami gave Toronto their first-round pick back in the Bosh sign-and-trade. Miami had acquired it in the Jermaine O'Neal trade.)

Fair enough, either way, it shouldn't be included, the only thing we can know for sure back then was that it was 1st round pick, anything can happen from there on.

[mikhailjordan]

I've always felt that except in extreme circumstances first round picks and young players are a means to an end not an end in themselves.