thebuzzardman wrote:delvec19 wrote:
I was a big proponent of trading Melo due to offensive fit with Jackson's scheme and also the reality of trying to get assets for him. But with the NTC, it's tough to do and if a good deal isn't there, I'm sort of intrigued to roll with Melo and no Rose and no Triangle.
Now, the "Melo needs a real PG" issue isn't solved, in that Frank N is young and unproven. But Melo and the offense should look a ton better minus Rose.
Of course, this hurts the tank, but, Knicks. I don't endorse that. In fact, I want the Knicks DEEP in the tank this one last year because of Donic, Porter and Bonga or whatever his name is a consolation prize.
But if all there is is crap deals, stay Melo.
Yeah this whole notion that we have to trade him is B.S. That was true under Phil. Now, with him out, it's a totally different landscape. A contract works both ways.
See, the whole problem before was that Melo was the victim. He didn't want to leave and was being forced. So, everyone took his preferences to heart. If he couldn't be where he wanted to be, at least do him a favor and send him to Cleveland or Houston. Now, scratch all of that B.S. If they push the notion that they have a new regime that feels differently, they love Melo, love his loyalty, want him to retire a Knick, etc., it puts Melo in a tough spot. If he still wants out, he then has to do the forcing. Although it's understandable, the Knicks do not have to accommodate every want of his if there's no benefit to them. He's no longer the victim.























