Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 88

Thread: Trading Gallo or Randolph for Carmelo will fail us.

  1. #31
    Veteran KBlack25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,668
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by hometheaterguy
    From Larry Coons NBA Salary Faq:
    Teams are restricted from trading away future first round draft picks in consecutive years. This is known as the "Ted Stepien Rule." Stepien owned the Cavs from 1980-83, and made a series of bad trades (such as the above-mentioned 1982 trade) that cost the Cavs several years' first round picks. As a result of Stepien's ineptitude, teams are now prevented from making trades which might leave them without a first round pick in consecutive future years.
    Right so we could offer 2014 but not 2013...isn't that what he is saying? I'm not sure why you think trading 2014 and retaining 2013 is against the rules?

  2. #32
    Knicks Guru hometheaterguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,017
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Originally Posted by TR1LL10N
    You are correct. If we wanted to offer 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020 etc...we could. The only stipulation is that we cant trade two 1st rounders in consecutive years of the draft not at the time of trade like theater dude suggests.
    You can only go 7 years into the future so a 2018 or 20 is not allowed.

    Again from Larry Coons site:
    The "Seven Year Rule" allows teams to trade draft picks up to seven years into the future (for example, if this is the 2008-09 season, then a 2015 pick can be traded, but a 2016 pick cannot).

  3. #33
    Knicks Guru hometheaterguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,017
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Originally Posted by KBlack25
    Right so we could offer 2014 but not 2013...isn't that what he is saying? I'm not sure why you think trading 2014 and retaining 2013 is against the rules?
    No, I am saying that under the current CBA a team can not trade future draft picks 2 years in a row. They would have to wait until the end of this season before they could offer a future pick.... That is how I understand it and how it has been explained on the shows that I have listened too and watched about this.

  4. #34
    Knicks Guru hometheaterguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,017
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Originally Posted by hometheaterguy
    No, I am saying that under the current CBA a team can not trade future draft picks 2 years in a row. They would have to wait until the end of this season before they could offer a future pick.... That is how I understand it and how it has been explained on the shows that I have listened too and watched about this.
    From what I understand with the Starbury deal... Didn't the Knicks trade their current and a future; not 2 futures?

  5. #35
    Veteran KBlack25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,668
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by hometheaterguy
    No, I am saying that under the current CBA a team can not trade future draft picks 2 years in a row. They would have to wait until the end of this season before they could offer a future pick.... That is how I understand it and how it has been explained on the shows that I have listened too and watched about this.

    No, because that reading produces an absurd result. Under your reading the restriction means that in 2005 (for arguments sake and easy numbers) a team could trade their 2007, 2008, 2009 draft picks, there is no rule against it because they are trading away future draft picks in the same year...But if they traded away their 2008 draft pick in 2005 they would be restrained from trading their 2007 draft pick in 2006. That result makes no sense.

    The much more logical, and correct, as I understand it from everything I have seen, is that a team must retain the rights to at least make 1 first round pick every two years. This is why you see so frequently at the draft teams actually drafting a guy and then trading away his draft rights in a deal agreed upon before the pick took place. It is a work around the rule. Otherwise, the trade would just get done.

  6. #36
    Superstar nuckles2k2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,172
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    The Jeffries deal was the right to swap 2011 picks, #1 overall protected. And our 2012 pick outright, #1 overall protected. So since we don't have the rights to our 2012 pick, we can't trade 2013 correct?

    What does that have to do with 2014? The rule isn't that you can't trade multiple first rounds picks in two consecutive calendar years, the rule is that a team can't go without a first round pick for two consecutive drafts.

    We had one in 2010, we will have one in 2011, we won't in 2012, we can't trade 2011 or 2013, but we can trade any pick from 2014 to whatever the last eligible year is, just not two years in a row (ie. 2015 and 2016.)

  7. #37
    Veteran KBlack25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,668
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by nuckles2k2
    The Jeffries deal was the right to swap 2011 picks, #1 overall protected. And our 2012 pick outright, #1 overall protected. So since we don't have the rights to our 2012 pick, we can't trade 2013 correct?

    What does that have to do with 2014? The rule isn't that you can't trade multiple first rounds picks in two consecutive calendar years, the rule is that a team can't go without a first round pick for two consecutive drafts.

    We had one in 2010, we will have one in 2011, we won't in 2012, we can't trade 2011 or 2013, but we can trade any pick from 2014 to whatever the last eligible year is, just not two years in a row (ie. 2015 and 2016.)
    This is the correct reading. I'm almost 100% sure hometheaterguy is mistaken.

  8. #38
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    county of the kings
    Posts
    1,120
    Rep Power
    8

    Nyk Logo

    Originally Posted by hometheaterguy
    From what I understand with the Starbury deal... Didn't the Knicks trade their current and a future; not 2 futures?

    your wrong.. the knicks can trade thier 2014...ok.. dont know what ur watching...

    you can give denver cap relief cuz we are still under the cap and salaries dont have to match exactly and also.. and u should know this mister ted sam rule.... salaries only need to match at like 75%.. so i could trade a player for 7.5 mil for a palyer making 10 mil.. ok my friend

    and also if houston gives away all those player.. who is melo playin with??? yao.. ur hillarious... remember houston dont got ariza no more...lmao

    u think he would sign an extension with houston????.... he might as well stay in denver.... yao wont make it past 40 games

  9. #39
    Knicks Guru hometheaterguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,017
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Originally Posted by KBlack25
    No, because that reading produces an absurd result. Under your reading the restriction means that in 2005 (for arguments sake and easy numbers) a team could trade their 2007, 2008, 2009 draft picks, there is no rule against it because they are trading away future draft picks in the same year...But if they traded away their 2008 draft pick in 2005 they would be restrained from trading their 2007 draft pick in 2006. That result makes no sense.

    The much more logical, and correct, as I understand it from everything I have seen, is that a team must retain the rights to at least make 1 first round pick every two years. This is why you see so frequently at the draft teams actually drafting a guy and then trading away his draft rights in a deal agreed upon before the pick took place. It is a work around the rule. Otherwise, the trade would just get done.
    I hear what you are saying and you could not trade 2 consecutive future picks at the same time but you could trade odd year picks at the same time. Oddly enough, you could trade a future pick but then the following year you could sign and then trade the draft pick. Very confusing but under the CBA you can not trade 2 consecutive future picks at the same time and you can not trade future picks 2 years consecutively meaning you can't trade a future pick this year and then a future pick next year, you would have to wait a year in between... But just to clarify, I sent an email out to see if I could get a response to the question.... I heard Coons talk about this on a internet show and this is how I heard him explain why the Knicks could not just offer Denver a 2014, 15 or 16 pick...... I mean based on your definition the Knicks could offer the 2014 and 2016 pick.... If that is correct than I concur...
    Also, even if they could offer a 2014 or 15 pick, is that what Denver wants right now? They want picks that are earlier and the Bulls and Rockets have the ability to trade 2 future picks that Denver can cash in much earlier.

  10. #40
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,845
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Puts an even darker spin on The Giraffe trade...

    Agree w NY Baller bigtime about winners making power moves to win now/later, and losers often just accepting some uncertain future where they might be able to do something that might make them legit...

    Why I wanted us to be pro-active about the prospects of trading Gallo dating back to the primetime stages of the superstar shopping spree.

    Gallo and AR are so unique and filled with big time promise that its tough, but if they equaled Melo I'd be on it.

    People say we wouldn't be contenders then, even w Melo. Well, we won't be if we don't get him. Adding Melo...to STAT...gives us a BONEFIED foundation to be contenders.

    It's as good a blueprint as we could have, giving us the easiest path with the least question marks.

    Felton
    Melo
    STAT
    Cap Space
    Couple legit 5 prospects

    Done and done.

    That said, if he goes elsewhere, I won't be crying. I love Gallo and AR. I'll just be re-adjusting my outlook as a fan and what I realistically expect out of the knicks in terms of actual winning.

  11. #41
    Veteran KBlack25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,668
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by hometheaterguy
    I hear what you are saying and you could not trade 2 consecutive future picks at the same time but you could trade odd year picks at the same time. Oddly enough, you could trade a future pick but then the following year you could sign and then trade the draft pick. Very confusing but under the CBA you can not trade 2 consecutive future picks at the same time and you can not trade future picks 2 years consecutively meaning you can't trade a future pick this year and then a future pick next year, you would have to wait a year in between... But just to clarify, I sent an email out to see if I could get a response to the question.... I heard Coons talk about this on a internet show and this is how I heard him explain why the Knicks could not just offer Denver a 2014, 15 or 16 pick...... I mean based on your definition the Knicks could offer the 2014 and 2016 pick.... If that is correct than I concur...
    Also, even if they could offer a 2014 or 15 pick, is that what Denver wants right now? They want picks that are earlier and the Bulls and Rockets have the ability to trade 2 future picks that Denver can cash in much earlier.
    Not trying to make any statement about what Denver does and does not want...I'm just fairly certain we could trade our future draft picks starting with the 2014 pick...But I don't think a 2014 pick gets the trade done anyway.

  12. #42
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    county of the kings
    Posts
    1,120
    Rep Power
    8

    Nyk Logo

    Originally Posted by KBlack25
    Not trying to make any statement about what Denver does and does not want...I'm just fairly certain we could trade our future draft picks starting with the 2014 pick...But I don't think a 2014 pick gets the trade done anyway.

    agreed... but coupled with ar and gallo.. and some second rounders.. it might work.. u dont know unless u ask..

  13. #43
    Veteran KBlack25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,668
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by moneyg
    agreed... but coupled with ar and gallo.. and some second rounders.. it might work.. u dont know unless u ask..
    I'm not giving up AR AND Gallo AND a 1st round pick just for Melo...sounds like an Isiah trade to me.

  14. #44
    Fundamentally Sound ronoranina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,758
    Rep Power
    11

    Nyk Logo

    Originally Posted by metrocard

    Gallo is a better fit for our team.

    Gallo has already proven he's a good player and he can become a very good player because he was the best player in Europe. Ginobili, Gasol and others who produce well in Europe @ a young age have had great NBA careers.

    Yes, Gallo will be as good as Ginboili or Gasol...mark my words, hater.


    DEVELOP OUR PROSPECT who's a SF and extremely SKILLED, experienced and TALENTED.

    Please find me a 21 year old with as much PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND SUCCESS as Gallinari(he was pro since his early teens and been the best player on his team for most of his teenage life).

    You can't.

    Its ignorant as hell to give up Gallo's role as the starting SF for Carmelo. Thats not how you build a team.

    You said the above about Gallo recently and it made good sense..

    Your OP in this thread is saying a couple of different things. It's complicated and I like that. But...,

    I don't know Metro, sounds like you're wavering a bit. Now you're saying you would choose Gallo to go over AR.

    You said you thought Gallo would be as good as Ginobili or Gasol. This to me that spells we don't need Melo and that we damn sure shouldn't give him up instead of AR in trade.

    I agreed w you then. Now I'm trying to figure out what changed..


    This goes out to all of you Anthony Randolph fanboys:

    WHAT HAS GOT YOU ALL SO FASCINATED W THIS MAN'S GAME?!?

    Is it a case of the, "I've seen very little of him syndrome"??

    To me, logic would dictate that because we haven't seen very much AR's (especially @MSG) game and what he's all about, we should be more skeptical about him. Thas just me tho.. (shakes head)

    I mean, I know he's very athletic, tall and he has good all-around skill w his ability to handle the ball. But, I've seen a few games involving Randolph and a bunch of highlights and I've come away with the thinking that I really need to see MUCH more to be even a small percentage of the believer in this guy that so many of you are.

    On the other side, I've watched Gallo for a full season and 28 games, scrutinized the man, breaking down every piece of his game, game to game and I'm telling you-- GALLO IS MUCH MORE LIKELY TO BREAK OUT THAN AR based on what I've seen from the both of them.

    Danilo Gallinari is a fundamentally sound, smart, tough, 6'10'' shooter, who can post up and use that threat from the outside to drive by any defender when they close out hard on him. He doesn't have to be that quick and yet he's working on this aspect of his game. The man has the ability to take over a game too as we've seen, in NY, late. This is undeniable and he's only 21.

    Randolph cannot do any of the above people!!! Wake up.

    Randolph is an athletic freelancer. He will not and should not be a focal point.

    To me, this team has two go-to players as constructed, Amare (obviously) and an emerging reliable scorer in Gallo. He will figure out how to do be the OTHER OPTION. He has too many tools not to and he knows it.. Too many of you on this forum don't.

    I still think we do not need Melo. Danilo will be fine. AR, right now until he proves otherwise, will a good supporting player. Amare will be Amare.

    I hate all of this chatter about Carmelo.

    Metro,

    I understand the thinking behind the title of your topic. I just need you to develop more why losing either Gallo or AR for Melo will sink us.

    I do think Danilo, AR, and STAT will see alot of time together, even if AR doesn't start.

    I also agree, although I have seen the three together, that having them on the frontline at the same time will be difficult (not impossible) to deal w for most teams. There are a quite a few good teams out there that will be able to handle us though. What would determine how dynamic the three of them together on the floor will be is how good AR is. I feel reasonably confident in what STAT and Gallo will bring. Randolph IMO is a big x-factor and ?. If he's good then we will be dangerous w Felton at the point directing the O.
    Last edited by ronoranina; Sep 22, 2010 at 19:21.

  15. #45
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    157
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Originally Posted by ronoranina
    Your OP is saying a couple of different things. It's complicated and I like that. But...

    I don't know Metro, sounds like you're wavering a bit. Now you're saying you would choose Gallo to go over AR.

    You said you thought Gallo would be as good as Ginobili or Gasol. This to me that spells we don't need Melo and that we damn sure shouldn't give him up instead of AR in trade.

    I agreed w you then. Now I'm trying to figure out what changed..


    This goes out to all of you Anthony Randolph fanboys:

    WHAT HAS GOT YOU ALL SO FASCINATED W THIS MAN'S GAME?!?

    Is it a case of the, "I've seen very little of him syndrome"??

    I know he's athletic, tall and he has good all-around skill w his ability to handle the ball. But, I've seen a few games involving Randolph and a bunch of highlights and I've come away with the thinking that I really need to see MUCH more to be even a small percentage of the believer in this guy that so many of you are.

    I watched Gallo for a season and 28 games, scrutinized the man, breaking down every piece of his game, game to game and I'm telling you-- GALLO IS MUCH MORE LIKELY TO BREAK OUT THAN AR based on what I've seen from the both of them.

    Danilo Gallinari is a fundamentally sound, smart, tough, 6'10'' shooter, who can post up and use that threat from the outside to drive by any defender when they close out hard on him. He doesn't have to be that quick and yet he's working on this aspect of his game. The man has the ability to take over a game too as we've seen, in NY, late. This is undeniable and he''s only 21.

    Randolph cannot do any of the above people!!! Wake up.

    Randolph is an athletic freelancer. He will not and should not be a focal point.

    To me, this team has two go-to players as constructed, Amare (obviously) and an emerging reliable scorer in Gallo. He will figure out how to do be the OTHER OPTION. He has too many tools not to and he knows it.. Too many of you on this forum don't.

    I still think we do not need Melo. Danilo will be fine. AR, right now until he proves otherwise, will a good supporting player. Amare will be Amare.

    I hate all of this chatter about Carmelo.

    I understand the thinking behind the title of your topic. I just need you to develop more why losing either Gallo or AR will sink us.

    I also agree, although I have seen the three together, that Danilo, AR, and STAT will see alot of time together, even if AR doesn't start.

    I do think having the three of them together on the frontline will be difficult to deal w for most teams. There are a quite a few good teams out there that will be able to handle us though. What would determine how dynamic the three of them together on the floor will be is how good AR is. I feel reasonably confident in what STAT and Gallo will bring. Randolph IMO is a big x-factor and ?. If he's good then we will be dangerous w Felton at the point directing the O.
    nobody is saying that Carmelo is the best player in the league or anything like that...

    Carmelo is a ALL - STAR, an MVP contender, a great scorer, and made the Olympic team. And you need more than 1 of these type of players in order to contend for a championship...

    As far as Gallo, yes he does have potential, and hes looking good, but he has not proved anything yet...

    The same thing goes for AR, he has not proved anything yet...

    And if we can trade for Anthony without having to include both Gallo and AR than go for it in a heart beat.

    Because then you would have 2 superstar players in Stoudemire and Anthony. A solid PG in Felton who has the potential to be even better in New York. And a supporting cast of either Gallo or AR, Turiaf, Azubuike, Mason, Mozgov, Walker, Douglas. ( I am pretending that either Gallo or AR along with Chandler and Curry are traded to Denver).

    And this team looks like it can contend for a championship as soon as this season (if the trade goes down).

    However, if it doesnt work out and we dont get Anthony, then I believe that we still have a good team that if players like Gallo, AR, Chandler, Mason, Mozgov, Douglas play solid basketball, Im supposing that Amare, Felton, Turiaf, and Azubuike will play well and stay out of injuries, then we will make maybe even the 5th seed in the Eastern Conference.

Similar Threads

  1. Chandler V Gallanari
    By Crazy⑧s in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: Nov 01, 2010, 10:51
  2. Replies: 29
    Last Post: Sep 17, 2010, 09:46
  3. Replies: 20
    Last Post: Jul 24, 2010, 16:55
  4. Randolph for Lee...article from GSW writer
    By metrocard in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: Jul 13, 2010, 01:15
  5. Zach Randolph putback dunk vs Heat
    By MSGKnickz33 in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Jan 25, 2008, 12:22

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •