Knicks/Kings (Randolph for Artest + bad deals)

Post #21 » by **loserX** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 1:50 am

Bac2Basics wrote:Any Artest to NY deal centers around getting David Lee & a 1st, because that's fair value for Artest, the rest is details and even cap on both sides.

Just for the sake of argument, let's take that as a starting point...your proposal then adds Fred Jones, Balkman/Robinson, and Malik Rose for Kenny Thomas. Is THAT fair value? (Hint: the answer rhymes with "know".)

rpa · Post #22 » by **rpa** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 1:56 am

loserX wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Just for the sake of argument, let's take that as a starting point...your proposal then adds Fred Jones, Balkman/Robinson, and Malik Rose for Kenny Thomas. Is THAT fair value? (Hint: the answer rhymes with "know".)

I think he's one of the Kings fans that is in the group of those proposing trades that counteract the absolutely ludicrous trades that many NY fans are making. You know, the ones where the Kings take on Jared Jeffries and somehow still give NY THEIR 1st rounder as well.

Bac2Basics · Post #23 » by **Bac2Basics** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 1:59 am

Let me clarify

Any deal without those items is an automatic no.

The other players involved are included by and large for cap reasons however I recognise that some of those other pieces have positive values.

There is some wiggle room in the deal, but not much because the Kings aren't just going to send Artest to NY unless they get what Petrie sees as good value in the return package.

Post #24 » by **loserX** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 2:00 am

rpa wrote:I think he's one of the Kings fans that is in the group of those proposing trades that counteract the absolutely ludicrous trades that many NY fans are making. You know, the ones where the Kings take on Jared Jeffries and someone still give NY THEIR 1st rounder as well.

This board would go a lot smoother if people stopped doing that and just proposed reasonable trades.

Also, I don't think so. I think he just wants too much for Artest.

rpa · Post #25 » by **rpa** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 2:07 am

loserX wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

This board would go a lot smoother if people stopped doing that and just proposed reasonable trades.

Also, I don't think so. I think he just wants too much for Artest.

Well, like i inferred, there are a lot of people on both sides that are a bit unrealistic with what to expect in an Artest trade. I personally don't think the 1st and Lee are the starting point of an offer. Even with Artest playing well it's hard for me to say that Artest is worth what will probably be a lottery pick (Artest did lead a bad Kings team to the playoffs in a half year so nothing's impossible) AND a very good, young, role player (he's not a star) who's on his rookie contract for at least another full year.

Smills91 · Post #26 » by **Smills91** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 2:15 am

Zach Randolph just sucks. Let him rot in NY for the length of his contract. Kenny Thomas deal makes Randolph's deal look as bloated as his bubble butt is.

Bac2Basics · Post #27 » by **Bac2Basics** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 2:15 am

rpa wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Well, like i inferred, there are a lot of people on both sides that are a bit unrealistic with what to expect in an Artest trade. I personally don't think the 1st and Lee are the starting point of an offer. Even with Artest playing well it's hard for me to say that Artest is worth what will probably be a lottery pick (Artest did lead a bad Kings team to the playoffs in a half year so nothing's impossible) AND a very good, young, role player (he's not a star) who's on his rookie contract for at least another full year.

Which is why in my deal, I said a 1st by 2010, giving the Knicks the opportunity to make the playoffs in the weak east in at least one of the next 3 seasons. If the Knicks are able to make the playoffs in one of those years, then it would make the most sense for them to trade the pick for the following year, if 3 years is up and they haven't made the playoffs by then, wherever that pick lands is fair game, even if it's in the upper half of the lottery.

Post #28 » by **loserX** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 2:21 am

Bac2Basics wrote:Which is why in my deal, I said a 1st by 2010, giving the Knicks the opportunity to make the playoffs in the weak east in at least one of the next 3 seasons. If the Knicks are able to make the playoffs in one of those years, then it would make the most sense for them to trade the pick for the following year, if 3 years is up and they haven't made the playoffs by then, wherever that pick lands is fair game, even if it's in the upper half of the lottery.

Don't forget that the Knicks already owe a pick to the Jazz, unprotected in 2010. So if Artest isn't the saviour some claim he is, the Kings won't even have access to a pick until 2012.

Smills91 · Post #29 » by **Smills91** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 2:21 am

loserX wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

This board would go a lot smoother if people stopped doing that and just proposed reasonable trades.

Also, I don't think so. I think he just wants too much for Artest.

For that to occur, you'd have to ban NY and LA fans for life from posting in this forum.

Post #30 » by **loserX** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 2:24 am

Smills91 wrote:Zach Randolph just sucks. Let him rot in NY for the length of his contract. Kenny Thomas deal makes Randolph's deal look as bloated as his bubble butt is.

That's funny, just the other day you said he was worth Ben Gordon and Joakim Noah.

(Of course, the Knicks didn't get those pieces in return, the Kings did. Funny how that works.)

Post #31 » by **moocow007** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 4:26 am

loserX wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Good points made in this post, except the bolded section, which is completely delusional. When was the last time SAR was in his prime, anyway? By that logic, the Jazz will S&T you John Stockton for Kevin Martin, since Stockton was better in his prime.

Post #32 » by **moocow007** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 4:27 am

Smills91 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

For that to occur, you'd have to ban NY and LA fans for life from posting in this forum.

You have got to be kidding. You are the biggest overrater of his own teams talent on RealGM.

Smills91 · Post #33 » by **Smills91** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 4:53 am

loserX wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

That's funny, just the other day you said he was worth Ben Gordon and Joakim Noah.

(Of course, the Knicks didn't get those pieces in return, the Kings did. Funny how that works.)

No I said Ron Artest was.

Smills91 · Post #34 » by **Smills91** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 4:54 am

moocow007 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

You have got to be kidding. You are the biggest overrater of his own teams talent on RealGM.

Well then that makes you the most superlative laden evaluator of those you feel overrate their players on RealGM.

Post #35 » by **loserX** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 5:36 am

Smills91 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

No I said Ron Artest was.

You had the Bulls trade Gordon, Noah and Smith for Zach Randolph. That suggests equivalency.

Nice try, Smills.

JN · Post #36 » by JN » Sun Jan 6, 2008 5:50 am

Bac2Basics wrote:Any Artest to NY deal centers around getting David Lee & a 1st, because that's fair value for Artest, the rest is details and even cap on both sides.

If someone else as an idea on how to do that better, I'm open to seeing it.

The Knicks suck you do realize. Your not getting a potential top 5 pick for Ron Artest.

Bac2Basics · Post #37 » by **Bac2Basics** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 6:28 am

JN wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
The Knicks suck you do realize. Your not getting a potential top 5 pick for Ron Artest.

Which is why the pick is by 2010 so the Knicks have a chance to improve their position between now and then.

** My 6000th Post **