Should we keep Zach now?

abcd said:

I disagree, and I'll tell you why.

In order to become a championship team, you have to first become a playoff team. The Knicks haven't made the playoffs in almost 5 years. Zach Randolph has playoff experience from when he was a Trailblazer. He's capable of helping the team win, if you have a shotblocking center for him to play alongside, in the front court.

David Lee is good, but the Knicks are well over the salary cap. The Knicks are most likely not going to be able to re-sign him for the contract that he's looking for. Lee's contract expires after this year, so if you trade Randolph, you run the risk of losing two power forwards, if you are unable to re-sign Lee.

Click to expand...

Signing Lee is a potential issue, but one that could easily be resolved with a trade that would bring back equal or better value if we are smart. We may even be able to get from under Curry's contract. The Lee saga is not a long term problem. It's just a decision that Walsh must make eventually depending on the values available and the salary he commands.

Randolph's contract is like a hangman's noose around our long term neck that will prevent us from making many other potential moves including sign free agents over the next few years. We should take the opportunity to get out from under it as soon as a good deal presents itself given that he's playing so well. It would be "ISIAH LEVEL idiotic and stupid" to think about the short term (like more wins this season or making the payoffs this year) instead of trying to move Randolph for as much as we can get while the iron is hot.

It doesn't matter that he's our best player right now. We aren't trying to win now (at least anyone with a brain isn't). We are trying to win a championship in 2010-2015. If someone offers anything good, we should trade him as fast as we can.

It all depends who we trade him for

Currently we are undersized so we would have to trade Zach for a big man with an expiring contract. My proposal is Marcus Camby...his contract is smaller and runs out before 2010, he would give us the shot blocking we need, plus he can run the floor as well as any big man in the league. But, we cant trade him for a player like Wally Z because that would add to our already over crowded backcourt, and would strip us of a major need on our team which is the frontcourt. David Lee would be inserted into Center and we could just call this season a wrap, which is fine if Dantoni is truly thinking of this year as a rebuilding year.

Not to mention a smart GM is going to want to see how long Zach Randolph can keep up this play befor making a move on him. If Zach's keeps up this play until the end of December then teams will begin to show serious interest and their proposals get better. Right now teams are looking at Zach as a risk and will still throw garbage proposals Donnie's way, but as long as Donnie keeps shooting down these weak proposals and Zach's numbers climb or stay about the same then his value steadily increases and we should get something sweet in return for him. The longer we wait the, the better it could get if Zach keeps up his play.

metrocard said:

We could probably get something more in value than what we GAVE up for him (expiring contract, young prospect)

Clippers
Cavs
Nuggets
Bulls

all show interest in Zach.

Cleveland has nice expiring contracts.
Denver doesn't have much.
Clippers don't have much, unless they give Camby
Bulls have cool trading chips.

What moves would you guys make?

My reason for letting Randolph go now.

Honestly; Randolph does this every season, puts up big numbers; but when the team depends on him; losing begins(see Portland)

Randolph isn't the man we want leading our front court.
No offense to him.

He's played great and his flaws haven't been exposed.


I don't know, how long will he keep this up?
If we had a Williams/Paul quality PG I wouldn't mind Randolph, because he's not that different from the level of David West or Carlos Boozer.

Call it impatient or not, but his value is high; I want this team to take advantage of that.

Click to expand...

I agree with Metro we should trade him. His value will go down as the year goes on. He is also a defensive liability. I rather have a player that scores 10 less points and has 3 less rebounds but can block 1-2 shots and know how to defend. We have enough scorers and rebounders on this team to make up for Randolph's numbers.

Also, we aren't trading Curry. Getting rid of Curry will cost us talent (whoever we have to package with him) to get an expiring contract and/or a "C" rated player most likely. Even then I am a little skeptical of someone really wanting him. I know there have been rumors, but if this was serious I think we would have really seen some more on it. I rather keep Curry around until we can get rid of him without packaging anything.

If we could work out a deal for Camby that would be great. It would solve both a short term need (interior defensive big man), not hurt the long term cap plans, and allow Lee and Chandler to fill in at the 4.

richtree said:

Plus we could get another guy like Lee in the 2nd round of the Draft....

Click to expand...

If this was so, why would any team want to trade for him if all they needed to do was use a second rounder to draft someone?

now would be a good time to trade Z-bo...we really need an inside presence

i would trade lee too. Like i said, the problem is in his genes. Every year players seem to get more and more athletic. Lee was once looked as being athetic, but now theres players stealin rebounds from him and rejectin his shots.

I'm going to say this and some people might be mad, but I say lets play Curry for about 5 games to get his value up, then bench him til the deadline, then trade him. Get his value up where we can get a decent trade. GET THAT FAT MONEY EATING LOSER OUTA HERE

What's good Knicks Fans?!? I finally decided to create an account so I can show the luv, support and disappointment. I've been reading this site for a while now so I feel like I already know what time it is with every poster. Anyway, nuff luv and lemme get to business.

I think we should keep Zach!!!

There have been previous post wondering if Zach would even fit in D'antoni's system. Personally, I think he's blossomed in D'antoni's system and it would be foolish of Walsh to get rid of him. What would we get in return????? Really, with the players we have right now? I know Crawful and Richardson and Marbury and blah blah blah blah blah. When was the last time that we've even seen the Knicks score over 100 points in consecutive games. Zach and Crawford are major contributors of our recent offensive scoring trend. Mind you this dude is averaging double figures.

Marbury, Lee and Curry OUTTA HERE!!!! We already know several teams are interested in each of these players. I think we can upgrade these players easier than Zach and Crawford.

why is it that we see all these new accounts agreeing with haters?? I think we got a trend here.... Double accounts????

we need to dump Z-Bo when he's hot his value is off the charts right now he's at the top of the league in rebounds and he's a 20-20 threat night in and night out so we should get rid of him as nice as he's been, he doesnt have a future with this team and we wouldnt want him when he starts playing bad...trade the guy asap.

what if he doesn't start playing bad? He obviously fits into D'Antoni's system..

yea but he's a big block for our 2010 plans and he has very good value we could get good young players so why not?...and he will start playing bad when we start losing and we'll get desperate and everyone willplay bad,so just trade em

Definitely not a double account jpz17. That's really whack!! I mean having luv for your team is one thing, but to have another account to agree with yourself is kinda on some multiple personality business. I don't hate.......I appreciate!

DaTPRiNCE said:

yea but he's a big block for our 2010 plans and he has very good value we could get good young players so why not?...and he will start playing bad when we start losing and we'll get desperate and everyone willplay bad,so just trade em

Click to expand...

I say its time for a 2008 plan..:beer::gony:

jpz17 said:

I say its time for a 2008 plan..:beer::gony:

Click to expand...

co-sign 100%:thumbsup:

jpz17 said:

I say its time for a 2008 plan..:beer::gony:

Click to expand...

Isiah tried that approach for a few years and that's why we are in this mess now!!!!:barf:

JayJ44 said:

We have to trade him eventually. Having him on our roster in 2010 virtually eliminates any chance of signing a free agent such as Lebron, Wade, Bosh etc. I don't think there's any rush to it though, he's really our only consistent offensive threat now. Unless some team offers us some incredible deal, I think we should wait till the trade deadline. Teams panic around that time if they're not doing as well as they think they would. Maybe a team would panic and give us a nice deal for Z-Bo.

Click to expand...

We'll neither have a chance to sign one of them if we don't have a competitive team at this point.

jpz17 said:

why is it that we see all these new accounts agreeing with haters?? I think we got a trend here.... Double accounts????

Click to expand...

you are a new account as well. If u are a ko.com vet, you would know that when the season starts, we get a lot of newbies. you all had strength in numbers when no1 was around....now people are seeing the light, and ur affraid all of a sudden>?

all of you who say trade randolph is retarded.
should phx trade nash after his "trade value" went up?
what about ya win value?
a team must return assets that bring W's

Z-Bo and 2010

For 2010 the Knicks are committed to about $52.9 in salaries. The 2010 cap, which is a function of NBA revenue, will be in the neighborhood of $60M.

The current committed salaries for 2010 are as follows: Z-Bo at $17.33M; Curry at $11.28M; Jamal at $10.08M; Jefferies at $6.88M; Collins at $2.8M; Gallinari at $2.75M; and Chandler at $1.78M. There are team options for Gallinari and Chandler, but, barring something very unfortunate, these options will certainly be exercised. We will have to add a salary for our 2009 first round pick -- the higher the pick, the greater the amount. Conservatively it is likely to be about $3.5M. So the total for 2010, without any changes, is at least $56.5M.
Plainly that leaves no room for LeBron, Bosh or Wade.

Curry and his $11.28M will likely be gone by 2010, hopefully for draft picks, promising younger players, or contracts that run out before 2010.

What do we do about Nate and Lee. This is a broad range, but I suspect each will be looking for contracts that are more than $6M and up to $10M a year. Each has trade value for a promising younger player who would be less expensive in 2010, but I hate to lose either. And we will need a point guard. I do not think that Collins is the man. Perhaps the 2010 draft pick. Or perhaps Natewill develop into a good point guard.

Jefferies' contract at $6.88M is not that bad, particularly if we no longer have Curry. Lets see how he does n the D'Antoni system.

In order to get 2010 cap space, the Knicks have to move Z-Bo or Jamal and perhaps both. Right now, they are our best players. If only one has to go, I prefer it be Jamal. Much to my surprise, Z-Bo has thrived under D'Antoni. However, if we can get some value, I would not be too upset if he is somewhere else in 2010.

Chandler and Gallinari have to develop into star quality players. Chandler seems to be on the way, but I have only hopes for Gallinari. The Knicks are going to need some more promising players before 2010.

What are the Knicks going to look like going into 2010 and before the acquisition of any of LeBron et al?