Comments on: Spurs Should Work On Gerald Wallace Trade

By: JL

JL — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:09:25 +0000

Harrington is a much better fit for the Knicks at the “Center” position (more of a PF anyways in D’Antoni’s system) than Z-Bo. Randolph’s 3pt shooting was poor, but that never stopped him from launching them. Harrington doesn’t have the back-to-the-basket game, but his better all-around game and better defense will make up for whatever half-court offense the Knicks loose.

As for losing Crawford, that was a tough blow. Cat Mobley isn’t really capable of replacing him, and Q isn’t really going to be great at SG, but he’s not going to be bad either. He’s less likely to be overpowered at the 2. Playing Chandler at the SF is going to hurt in the short run, but it will make the Knicks a better team down the road.

So, all in all, these two trades were a way to solve some financial problems without hurting the current team too badly. Compared to dumping Z-Bo for absolutely nothing (like the Clippers offered this summer), this was a decent deal. As for trading Crawford for Harrington, that was a fair deal.

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:55:03 +0000

Wow this recent trade of Crawford for Harrington, and the possible impending Randolph for Thomas and Mobley deal are not good. I know the Knicks are so intent on the ‘10 free agent class, but the franchise could seriously fall apart before then. I understand the cap implications but i guess the Knicks are back to the Eastern Conference basement again. Trading your best 2 players is not quite the best move. Now if Jeffries and Curry were involved in these trades, they would have made more sense.

By: JL

JL — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 05:08:34 +0000

Fair enough – I’m sure most Knick fans would like to see that as well. If Curry can loose some weight and cure that knee pain – and run in a few games – someone somewhere in the NBA will take a flyer on him. As for Crawford, I would submit any number of players in his position would flourish in D’Antoni’s system. Crawford’s biggest advantage is his ability to play so well in a half-court offense (his handle is excellent). D’Antoni can make any guard look like a scoring threat (Raja Bell), so I’m not convinced that Crawford is essential. Still, if and when Lebron arrives, it would be nice to surround him with some top talent (Crawford is good, no doubt).

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 02:44:54 +0000

You also made some good points, I just disagree with the Nate and Lee part. I totally agree one of them is possibly going to have to be sacrificed to dump one of their other bad salaries but a team in the Knick’s position is going to need really good role players in order to have the pieces to surround Lebron with. I’d say that Curry can be dumped and if it’s going to take giving up Lee or Nate to get rid of Jeffries then I’d have to say I’d rather see Lee go. Nate is an incredible talent, who if only he were a few inches taller would be a superstar like an Allen Iverson type. But Crawford and Randolph are two guys they need to retain if they are going to remain competitive before 2010. I just hope that Curry and Jeffries are the two of the four you listed that are dumped, rather than two actually productive players in Randolph and Crawford.

By: JL

JL — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:18:10 +0000

Jimmie – Good points. I wholeheartedly agree that placing all the eggs in the Lebron basket is foolish. However, there’s no arguing that Lebron can sign for the same per/year salary in NY as he can in Cleveland. Seeing how Lebron was willing to sign a shorter contract last time he negotiated (in order to maximize his salary long-term), despite the inherent risk of a career-ending injury, Lebron has demonstrated that he’s got the big picture in mind. He’s also confident that he won’t get hurt (or at least he’s willing to gamble). The Knicks offer the chance to play on a world stage, and the potential endorsements that would come with being a Knick are hard to estimate (think Tiger Woods). So, I can believe that Lebron would seriously consider the Knicks.

As for dumping Lee to help move salary, it might make sense. As exciting of a player as Lee is, he’ll likely never be more than a very good role player. Curry, Crawford, Jeffries, and Randolph are all under contract through 2010. Dump any one of them, and they have a shot at paying Lebron (assuming the cap continues to rise and they don’t take on any more deals). Dump two, and you guarantee a shot at Lebron as well as give yourself a chance to bring in some talent. Z-Bo could be traded – his abilities would likely entice someone (especially since he’s flourishing in D’Antoni’s system) – but the Knicks would probably like to keep him (every team needs a post scorer) unless they could get something too good to pass up. If moving Lee helps you move Curry, you solve two problems – no contact for Lee this summer, and no more paying a guy $10 million to sit on his ass. Same goes for moving Nate Robinson too. I like them both, but they’re role players. It would make sense to lose both if it gave you a good shot at Lebron.

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:50:56 +0000

I’m not hoping for Lebron anyways, I’d rather see them get D-Wade, Amare, or Bosh, which will cost slightly less, and how can they move Jamal? he’s one of the two big scoring threats they even have, if they want to at least remain competitive for the next few years to keep fans interested they also need to retain Lee. Lee is the only fan favorite, along with Nate, that the Knicks have had in years. In my opinion, looking down the road two years ahead is really counterproductive, because you cannot put all your eggs in one basket. If the Knicks could have gotten Gerald Wallace in some kind of Curry deal, I would have been ecstatic. Build for the future, while remaining at least competitive now is what Knick fans want to see. And at 4-2, this is quite a nice surprise for us diehards.