[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Walsh and his scouts had pegged Randolph as a future All-Star coming out of the 2008 draft and Walsh leapt at the opportunity to have Randolph included in the[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]sign-and-trade last July.
Golden State's troubled guard[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]was available straight-up for Lee, but the Knicks didn't want the long-term contract that would have precluded them to having cap flexibility to sign Carmelo Anthony in 2011 and Chris Paul in 2012.
Ellis is now playing like an All-Star, and Randolph has played his way off the rotation for the foreseeable future.
What do we think of this?
Obviously, getting 3 players instead of 1, and leaving door open to snag Melo or Paul makes total sense to me.
I would definitely prefer Turiaf and Melo any day of the week.
However, what if we swing and miss...
Also, would we be a better team this year?
I mean, if we traded for M-Ellis instead of the other 3.... We obviously don't sign Felton. What do we do with that money? If we let Chandler walk, could we still sign Melo (or any max free agent)?
? (With money we gave to Felton, we get a Turiaf type C)
I have to side with Walsh. I mean, unless I could get both Turiaf and Ellis, it just makes more sense to grab Turiaf (to compliment STAT), get an "asset" in Randolph, roll the dice with Azu, and keep a "bad" contract off the books.
NO DOUBT if Knicks had Ellis we would be a playoff team this year. We probably win games 138-131. BUt, we would have no defense in the paint. We saw what happened when Turiaf was hurt.
BUT IF WE DO NOT GET MELO, then we might regret ths decision?
I mean, say we sign Marc Gasol.
That might not win titles, but it is an exciting team.
Anyway. I think we made the right move. Your thoughts?