Great Gasol Trade Here

[whodey]

-= original quote snipped =-



They won't want Kirk with Conley Jr. and Lowry.

I think he would be a good off guard for them playing next to conley with lowry off the bench. Hell take out griffin and give them sefolosha, he could use a different system. And it's not that much of a salary risk for Memphis.

Conley / Lowry
Hinrich / Sefolosha
Gay / Nocioni
Beasley / Nocioni / Warrik
Milicic / Noah

[RyGuy24]

-= original quote snipped =-



I think he would be a good off guard for them playing next to conley with lowry off the bench. Hell take out griffin and give them sefolosha, he could use a different system. And it's not that much of a salary risk for Memphis.

Conley / Lowry
Hinrich / Sefolosha
Gay / Nocioni
Beasley / Nocioni / Warrik
Milicic / Noah

I'll admit that it would be considerabe. I just think other GM's believe Hinrich has alot more value at the 1 than the 2 on offense.

[Ben]

Why would we help you get Gasol and get back Wallace's contract?

Why would you have traded two top-10 picks to us for a guy (Curry) against whom your fan and media bases have now turned like rabid dogs? Why would have taken Crawford's contract off of our hands and enabled us to draft Ben Gordon? Why would you have signed Jerome James to such a long and lucrative contract-- or Jared Jeffries, for that matter? Why would you have traded to a conference rival for Steve Francis, only to bench him and look to jettison his contract?

You did those things b/c your GM was trying to improve his ballclub. You would perhaps trade Curry for Wallace if THAT were perceived as improving your ballclub. Do you seriously NOT think that Curry for Wallace would improve you right now? Curry cannot play well next to Zach, and Zach does not defend (and he has to fight Eddy for touches). And David Lee and Renaldo Balkman are both playing worse than they did before Zach came on board, especially in the rebounding department. Do you seriously think that even a diminished Ben Wallace would not be a better match with Zach and the Knicks?

So forget about the part where the Bulls get Gasol and focus on whether your team is improved. Unless, that is, you view the Bulls as one of the primary teams standing in the way of the Knicks' conference dominance. The way that you and the way that we have been playing, that's laughable from 2 ends.

[BrooklynBulls]

-= original quote snipped =-



Why would you have traded two top-10 picks to us for a guy (Curry) against whom your fan and media bases have now turned like rabid dogs? Why would have taken Crawford's contract off of our hands and enabled us to draft Ben Gordon? Why would you have signed Jerome James to such a long and lucrative contract-- or Jared Jeffries, for that matter? Why would you have traded to a conference rival for Steve Francis, only to bench him and look to jettison his contract?

You did those things b/c your GM was trying to improve his ballclub.

That...was not the reason I thought Isiah Thomas did all those.

[StutterStep]

Do you seriously NOT think that Curry for Wallace would improve you right now?

NO! Curry is the problem. We are constantly moving pieces to help him. It is time (always has been time) for Curry to improve his deficiencies so that players like Frye, Lee and Zach can function. All those guys do at least one thing well that a PF should be able to do. Curry simply needs to improve his REBOUNDING. Then we can proceed.


This has nothing to do with trading Curry to get Ben Wallace back.



So forget about the part where the Bulls get Gasol and focus on whether your team is improved. Unless, that is, you view the Bulls as one of the primary teams standing in the way of the Knicks' conference dominance. The way that you and the way that we have been playing, that's laughable from 2 ends.

Would you make a three way trade to facilitate Cleveland losing Larry Hughes' salary so they can get Jason Kidd... while you send Deng to New Jersey? That's the equivalent of the trade proposed. That trade does not help us.

[topper09]

Give me Gasol baby

[Ben]

Do you seriously NOT think that Curry for Wallace would improve you right now?

NO! Curry is the problem. We are constantly moving pieces to help him. It is time (always has been time) for Curry to improve his deficiencies so that players like Frye, Lee and Zach can function. All those guys do at least one thing well that a PF should be able to do. Curry simply needs to improve his REBOUNDING. Then we can proceed.


This has nothing to do with trading Curry to get Ben Wallace back.

StutterStep, you're not making a lot of sense here. You talk about it being time for Curry to "improve his deficiencies," which you then specify as his rebounding. But he's never been a good rebounder. He's supposed to start being a good one NOW, in his 7th year in the league? Absurd. It just doesn't happen that way.

What's more, Curry's rebounding has not been the problem. When he plays alongside Lee he does just fine. Lee gets the rebounds and Curry scores. But when Curry plays next to Randolph he neither rebounds nor scores as well as he does when he's not next to Randolph. Lee doesn't rebound as well next to Randolph, either. Neither does Balkman.

The problem is that Curry has been unable to coexist well with Randolph. As I pointed out in a thread last night (convenient of you to miss that one! ), when Randolph has been out this year Curry has played as well as he ever did-- in fact, he's played better than his career averages.
http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic. ... 2&start=12

With Randolph in, Curry has been badly sub-par.

They can't play together. Everyone knew that it would happen this way. Everyone except for IT, that is. Both of them need the offense to be run through them, neither of them play defense. A few weeks ago you exonerated Zach and wrote that Curry has simply been in the cr*pper, but you were wrong. Zach has displaced Curry's production and sapped his confidence. You're not going to be able to make a go of it with both of them on the team.

Would you make a three way trade to facilitate Cleveland losing Larry Hughes' salary so they can get Jason Kidd... while you send Deng to New Jersey? That's the equivalent of the trade proposed. That trade does not help us.

I get your point, but your analogy stinks.
1.) Luol Deng is an excellent, very highly regarded young player. He's probably our best player. Eddy Curry is not excellent, not very highly regarded and not your best player. Lots of fans want to get rid of him, and the media has speculated that he might be traded as well. Not so with Deng.

2.) You're talking about a hypothetical trade that helps 2 of our EC rivals whereas the Memphis-NY- Chicago proposal involves only 1 other EC team besides the Knicks.

3.) If we could trade Ben Wallace in a 3-way that involved Cleveland getting Bibby and us getting a player who might be able to really help us, such as Larry Hughes, plus another cheap young player at a position of need for us-- let's say a cheap young center, someone like Cedric Simmons or Spencer Hawes-- I'll bet that a lot of Bulls fans would be just fine with that. I don't even like Hughes. Not at all. But if he could conceivably return to his pre-Cleveland, slashing ways he could be of great use to us, and Wallace's absence would free us up to play Noah, Tyrus and Gray a lot more. So Cleveland gets Bibby. So what? They might get him even without our assistance, and we're out to help ourselves.

4.) Finally, and most importantly, the Knicks are not in the position of worrying about the competition. The Knicks are terrible. They have been terrible for 2 years. Maybe we're terrible, too; maybe we're almost as bad as the Knicks. If so, then there's no reason to worry about helping us to improve. And if we're not really that bad, if we're more like the team that won 49 games last year with the same personnel, then the Knicks are so much worse than us that they don't need to be considering us their competition.

Isiah needs to do whatever he can do to save his job. He has made a bloody mess of things. Some nice individual talent, but the pieces don't fit together at ALL. Sometimes you can "lose" a trade with regard to "fair value" but "win" in the long run by matching a need and making the team's parts fit together better.

By the way, if GMs really operated by your rules then the Spurs never would have traded Scola to the Rockets.

I'm not saying that the proposed Chicago-NY-Memphis deal will happen. In fact I said that it would NOT. But not b/c NY would balk at helping a so-called "rival."

[Neusch23]

wow, you can sure tell that Jerry West is gone.

Not only do people see Gasol leaving town, one of the worst players in the game that seems to keep the title of having "upside" gets traded to them.


I believe that you could put Curry on the Spurs, and if he plays 30 min a night that they would have a hard time winning 50 games.



I believe Gasol gets traded to the bulls at the dead line.

[Ben]

By the way, there's a thread on the Knicks board linking to an article on the "Zach- Eddy Blues," the pattern of the Knicks falling behind badly in the 1st quarter when Zach and Eddy share the court.
http://www.cosellout.com/?p=203

Good observations in the "Side Note on Zach" section a bit lower down. The article argues that Zach excels in individual stats but does not make his teammates better (and sometimes alienates them).

There's also a link to a NY Times article by Howard Beck that questions whether the Knicks are better without Zach (or, implicitly, without Curry):
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/sport ... ref=slogin

This should be of interest to those 2 posters, one of whom is StutterStep and one of whom is a Bulls fan, who have consistently denied these very arguments when I and others have made them.

[Sonny_D1]

How about this Gasol deal:

Bulls Trade: Wallace, Noc, TT
Bulls receive: Gasol, Kwame, Crittenton

LA Lakers Trade: Odom, Kwame, Crittenton, Karl (filler)
LA Receives: Wallace, Noc, Stoudamire

Memhis Trades: Gasol, Stoudamire
Memphis Receives: Odom, TT, Karl (filler)

Odom would thrive as a point-forward in Iavaroni's system, as Phoenix was long rumored to be interested in Odom. They also get another athletic freak in TT to pair up with Gay, something that will surely help attract fans to the stadium. In addition they get rid of Cardinal's conract.

The Bulls get their big man down low to go along with who I believe would end up being their future starting PG. I think Crittenton is going to be a very, very good player in this league.

I don't know if this is enough for the lakers, but I definitely think Wallace would thrive next to Bynum down low, and playing with a superstar in Kobe he'd probably be rejuvinated. Noc would give them another hard-nosed player to throw in the mix. I suppose we could throw in a 1st rounder if needed.

Thoughts?

Edit: Since Stoudamire wants out, replace Cardinal with him the deal still works.

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/t ... &te=&cash=

[dflaschberger]

the original deal is mine-NY would be better off with this. It's not like wallace will lead them to a title, but remember, the are embarrassing themselves now. Wallace and randolph makes sense, with lee their 3rd big. Isiah must make them more competetive, and wallace is still a name

Chicago, of course, does this unless the $ scares them off? i doubt it, this deal makes them VERY well rounded. Like i said, noc could replace thabo and gray-not my first choice, but could work.

Memphis would be rolling the dice and saving a bunch of $. Curry could be ok there. NY's not working, but he is tough on the blocks. The other pieces and the savings could make it worth it

[StutterStep]

StutterStep, you're not making a lot of sense here. You talk about it being time for Curry to "improve his deficiencies," which you then specify as his rebounding. But he's never been a good rebounder. He's supposed to start being a good one NOW, in his 7th year in the league? Absurd. It just doesn't happen that way.


==Makes sense to me! "Curry, improve your rebounding!!" See, quite simple.


What's more, Curry's rebounding has not been the problem. When he plays alongside Lee he does just fine. Lee gets the rebounds and Curry scores. But when Curry plays next to Randolph he neither rebounds nor scores as well as he does when he's not next to Randolph. Lee doesn't rebound as well next to Randolph, either. Neither does Balkman.

==No! Curry refuses to play with another big man who replaces the lone thing he does well. If Curry could rebound then we could have played a guy like Frye with him. Instead we are always looking for something to be next to Curry. You can't put non-scorers like Lee next to Curry because teams wouldn't even guard Lee past 8ft and simply double-team Curry.



The problem is that Curry has been unable to coexist well with Randolph. As I pointed out in a thread last night (convenient of you to miss that one! ), when Randolph has been out this year Curry has played as well as he ever did-- in fact, he's played better than his career averages.
http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic. ... 2&start=12

==ONE GAME!!!! Yet we were 0-4 during those games.



I get your point, but your analogy stinks.

==No it does not! No matter what you think of Luol Deng. There are teams who would value Curry's presence over Deng's. Really!!



Finally, and most importantly, the Knicks are not in the position of worrying about the competition. The Knicks are terrible.

==Now, that makes no sense! Because a team is not playing well, they can give their talent to a division or conference rival. Please show me a recent trade that proves this point.


By the way, if GMs really operated by your rules then the Spurs never would have traded Scola to the Rockets.

===WOW, the GREAT SCOLA!!!

[jax98]

StutterStep, you're not making a lot of sense here. You talk about it being time for Curry to "improve his deficiencies," which you then specify as his rebounding. But he's never been a good rebounder. He's supposed to start being a good one NOW, in his 7th year in the league? Absurd. It just doesn't happen that way.


==Makes sense to me! "Curry, improve your rebounding!!" See, quite simple.

Even if you dangle a cheeseburger on the rim, Curry still wouldn't become a better rebounder. He's terrible at positioning himself, he can't box out and he has trouble against smaller players. If David Lee was playing on another team and Eddy was matched with him, I predict at least 15+ rebounds in favor of David. Eddy has never used his size defensively. Trust us, we know. We all sat there watching him mess up on defense since 2001!

What's more, Curry's rebounding has not been the problem. When he plays alongside Lee he does just fine. Lee gets the rebounds and Curry scores. But when Curry plays next to Randolph he neither rebounds nor scores as well as he does when he's not next to Randolph. Lee doesn't rebound as well next to Randolph, either. Neither does Balkman.

==No! Curry refuses to play with another big man who replaces the lone thing he does well. If Curry could rebound then we could have played a guy like Frye with him. Instead we are always looking for something to be next to Curry. You can't put non-scorers like Lee next to Curry because teams wouldn't even guard Lee past 8ft and simply double-team Curry.

Untrue. In order to get maximum value out of Curry (Which isn't saying a whole lot) you need to put a defensive minded player next to him in a line-up. David Lee as a full-time starting power forward next to Curry would bring out his Eddy and his abilities the most. It's your GM/Coach who feels an offense/offense, no defense will work. You're currently 8-24. Do you think it has?

The problem is that Curry has been unable to coexist well with Randolph. As I pointed out in a thread last night (convenient of you to miss that one! ), when Randolph has been out this year Curry has played as well as he ever did-- in fact, he's played better than his career averages.
http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic. ... 2&start=12

==ONE GAME!!!! Yet we were 0-4 during those games.

Yes, you were 0-4. But does that surprise you? Neither Eddy nor Zach is a winner. So the record is basically a moot point. It's a fact that Eddy works better when he's the only offensive-minded front-court player on the floor.

I get your point, but your analogy stinks.

==No it does not! No matter what you think of Luol Deng. There are teams who would value Curry's presence over Deng's. Really!!

You're wrong. Really!! There's only GM who is bone-headed, stupid, and wasted enough to think that. Ladies and Gentlemen, I present Isiah Thomas.

Finally, and most importantly, the Knicks are not in the position of worrying about the competition. The Knicks are terrible.

==Now, that makes no sense! Because a team is not playing well, they can give their talent to a division or conference rival. Please show me a recent trade that proves this point.

Ever hear of addition by substraction? I reckon the Knicks would be a much improved team if they traded Zach and Eddy. None of them plays two-way basketball, only of them rebounds and both will be making over $10M a year.

By the way, if GMs really operated by your rules then the Spurs never would have traded Scola to the Rockets.

===WOW, the GREAT SCOLA!!!

Yes, the same Scola who would do a better job than Eddy and probably Randolph.