Trading Gallo or Randolph for Carmelo will fail us.

hometheaterguy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

KBlack25 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

moneyg said:

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

Click to expand...

I'm not giving up AR AND Gallo AND a 1st round pick just for Melo...sounds like an Isiah trade to me.

metrocard said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

ronoranina said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

stat and melo would be about 50 a game on their own... throw in the rest and that's the playoff baby. i wouldn't like to see gallo go but he will waste away on the bench at this stage of his career. he can always come back as a FA. i think with melo we could match up even with miami . go bockers

AlboKnickFan said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree w the last paragraph, but I have to ask..

How much have you seen of Gallo?? How much have you seen of Randolph??

Who have you seen more of?? Who do you know more about??

The answer to me is sort of easy.. I've seen alot more of G. I've seen a much smaller sample of AR. That doesn't mean I didn't put together a quick report in my mind of what he can't and can do. I'm just much more sure of what I've seen from G and what he will be based on this viewing disparity, if you will.

What are you basing this statement on that G is an equal unknown to AR w regards to what they can be?

As someone who watched Gallo in every game last season and the season before, they damn sure ARE NOT EQUALLY UNKNOWN and less proven to me. :thumbsup: Combine this w the fact that G-state basically shipped AR out of town for nothing, like someone else astutely pointed out and as I said also in the --If The Knicks Don't Get Melo-- thread, and something smells fishy. Something is amiss here w AR.

To me he has WAY more to prove than Gallo.

Who knows man, maybe G can average 23 ppg along w Amare's 24-25. We don't know...! The difference between Melo's and Gallo's scoring could be negligible.

But the disparity between Gallo and Melo in the area of intangibles is something that would be missed. Melo is not the personality that Gallo is. Gallo is really affable and has other traits that lend to leadership. These skills, and they are skills, are often undervalued and overlooked.

I will be really disappointed if G is included in a trade for Melo. My 2 cents...

ronoranina said:

I agree w the last paragraph, but I have to ask..

How much have you seen of Gallo?? How much have you seen of Randolph??

Who have you seen more of?? Who do you know more about??

The answer to me is sort of easy.. I've seen alot more of G. I've seen a much smaller sample of AR. That doesn't mean I didn't put together a quick report in my mind of what he can't and can do. I'm just much more sure of what I've seen from G and what he will be based on this viewing disparity, if you will.

What are you basing this statement on that G is an equal unknown to AR w regards to what they can be?

As someone who watched Gallo in every game last season and the season before, they damn sure ARE NOT EQUALLY UNKNOWN and less proven to me. :thumbsup: Combine this w the fact that G-state basically shipped AR out of town for nothing, like someone else astutely pointed out and as I said also in the --If The Knicks Don't Get Melo-- thread, and something smells fishy. Something is amiss here w AR.

To me he has WAY more to prove than Gallo.

Who knows man, maybe G can average 23 ppg along w Amare's 24-25. We don't know...! The difference between Melo's and Gallo's scoring could be negligible.

But the disparity between Gallo and Melo in the area of intangibles is something that would be missed. Melo is not the personality that Gallo is. Gallo is really affable and has other traits that lend to leadership. These skills, and they are skills, are often undervalued and overlooked.

I will be really disappointed if G is included in a trade for Melo. My 2 cents...

Click to expand...

I dont think you are a bigger Gallo and AR fan that I am. And actually those are the only players along with Amare that I think can help us get somewhere. However, Im talking about a superstar that has been in All-star games, has averaged 28 ppg per season, was and will be a MVP candidate, has playoff experience, etc etc...

The other thing is that if we can somehow get Melo and retain either Gallo or Randolph ( I prefer Gallo), then we hit the jack pot...

Toons said:

lol checkmate

Click to expand...

OK, I got my question answered and it turns out that I am right but not for the reason I explained. I knew there was some weird reason why the Knicks did not have the ability to offer a pick for Melo; here's what Larry Coons said:

Question: Can the Knicks offer their 2014, 15 or 16 pick to Denver in a trade for Melo before or during the 2010, 11 season?

Answer: No. A team cannot be without a first round pick in two consecutive future years. For example, if their 2014 pick is owed, then they cannot trade their 2013 or 2015 picks. They can't even make a trade that leaves them with the POSSIBILITY of being without consecutive future picks.

The Knicks owe a first round pick somewhere in the 2012 - 2015 range to Houston (top-5 protected each year), so the only pick they can trade is their 2017 pick. They can't go out farther than 2017 -- seven years is the max.

But if they end up with the #6 pick next year and it's conveyed to Houston, then their 2013-2015 picks become tradeable.

Walsh also has the ability to acquire another team's first round pick, either to send to Denver, or to have on hand so his own picks are freed up to trade.

KBlack25 said:

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.

Click to expand...

So like I explained, the Knicks CAN NOT offer a pick UNLESS it is the 2017 pick and there is NO WAY Denver will do it. So, I was correct and it is because of the way Walsh structured the pick to Houston. Houston literally has a 4 year span to choose from when they want to cash in the pick. Walsh has tied up the Knicks ability to trade a pick for up to 6 years from now.

hometheaterguy said:

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).

Click to expand...

That's fine, I wasn't aware of the 7 year rule but it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong about how you are interpreting the 2 consecutive year 1st rnd. draft pick rule.

KBlack25 said:

I'm not giving up AR AND Gallo AND a 1st round pick just for Melo...sounds like an Isiah trade to me.

Click to expand...

i would.. this sounds like the channing frye rule....

after mr. frye showed promise for the knicks.. the minnesota timbs wanted frye for garnet.. isaih said no becuz channing might be the next garnet...

NEVER HAPPENED....

potential gets coaches and gms fired.....

melo is proven

sorry just the facts

also dont expect gallo to start if we were to get melo.. so he might as well go.... and we have a bunch of SFs

meo will be the starting 3
amare will be the starting 4
felton will be the starting 1
turiaf/tmo will be the starting 5
gallo aint playin the 2

hometheaterguy said:

OK, I got my question answered and it turns out that I am right but not for the reason I explained. I knew there was some weird reason why the Knicks did not have the ability to offer a pick for Melo; here's what Larry Coons said:

Question: Can the Knicks offer their 2014, 15 or 16 pick to Denver in a trade for Melo before or during the 2010, 11 season?

Answer: No. A team cannot be without a first round pick in two consecutive future years. For example, if their 2014 pick is owed, then they cannot trade their 2013 or 2015 picks. They can't even make a trade that leaves them with the POSSIBILITY of being without consecutive future picks.

The Knicks owe a first round pick somewhere in the 2012 - 2015 range to Houston (top-5 protected each year), so the only pick they can trade is their 2017 pick. They can't go out farther than 2017 -- seven years is the max.

But if they end up with the #6 pick next year and it's conveyed to Houston, then their 2013-2015 picks become tradeable.

Walsh also has the ability to acquire another team's first round pick, either to send to Denver, or to have on hand so his own picks are freed up to trade.

Click to expand...

Again you are wrong...

The Knicks traded the right to swap in 2011 (they could not outright trade their 2011 pick because they lost 2010) and a Top-1 protected 2012 pick. They have full rights to their 2013, 2014, 2015...

You misunderstand the trade, and misunderstood the rule, which leads to gross misstatements of the situation.

I am pretty sure that the trade does not say anything about 2013-2017...http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4924836

Nothing in the initial report mentions it.

That said, I wouldn't want to make the trade anyway.

TR1LL10N said:

That's fine, I wasn't aware of the 7 year rule but it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong about how you are interpreting the 2 consecutive year 1st rnd. draft pick rule.

Click to expand...

I stated that 7 year rule in one of my posts

hometheaterguy said:

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).

Click to expand...

I also stated that I was listening to some shows talk about the Knicks not being able to offer a draft pick to Denver as part of the deal. The CBA can be confusing, like I stated that a team can get around the 2 year rule by signing and trading the pick.... But, you are correct that I did mis-understand the 2 year rule in that a team could trade a future pick as long as it was 2 years away from the last pick they traded.

hometheaterguy said:

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.

Click to expand...

So, I did take the information that was being conveyed and interpreted wrong.
Doesn't matter if I took point B instead of Point A to get to Point C, as long as I got there and you guys were insistent that they could trade their 2014 pick and I originally stated that because of their deal with Houston, they were ham-stringed this year! So factually I was correct!

KBlack25 said:

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?

Click to expand...

KBlack25 said:

Again you are wrong...

The Knicks traded the right to swap in 2011 (they could not outright trade their 2011 pick because they lost 2010) and a Top-1 protected 2012 pick. They have full rights to their 2013, 2014, 2015...

You misunderstand the trade, and misunderstood the rule, which leads to gross misstatements of the situation.

Click to expand...

How am I wrong? Larry Coons in recognized as the premier NBA cap guy and I just pasted in his response to me... He knows the Knicks situation as well as Walsh! Walsh structured the trade in a way that prevents them from trading a future pick this season unless it is the 2017 pick. Here is what he wrote me again:

The Knicks owe a first round pick somewhere in the 2012 - 2015 range to Houston (top-5 protected each year), so the only pick they can trade is their 2017 pick. They can't go out farther than 2017 -- seven years is the max.

But if they end up with the #6 pick next year and it's conveyed to Houston, then their 2013-2015 picks become tradeable.

Walsh also has the ability to acquire another team's first round pick, either to send to Denver, or to have on hand so his own picks are freed up to trade.

So what he is saying is Houston has the ability to sit and wait to cash in that pick any time from 2012 to 2015; Walsh gave them that option. The Knicks have those years top 5 protected and if they get a decent pick next season and Houston chooses to cash their future #1 consideration then the Knicks are freed up and can offer a team their 2013 through to 2015 pick to a team starting at the 2011/2012 season.

Where in the trade does it say that? I'm not saying Coon is not a recognized capologist, and usually I trust his opinion, but he is not infallible. The way I understand the trade, still, is that there is a right to swap in 2011, and our pick in 2012. Find me an article, a document, something about the JEfferies trade that says otherwise.

moneyg said:

i would.. this sounds like the channing frye rule....

after mr. frye showed promise for the knicks.. the minnesota timbs wanted frye for garnet.. isaih said no becuz channing might be the next garnet...

NEVER HAPPENED....

potential gets coaches and gms fired.....

melo is proven

sorry just the facts

also dont expect gallo to start if we were to get melo.. so he might as well go.... and we have a bunch of SFs

meo will be the starting 3
amare will be the starting 4
felton will be the starting 1
turiaf/tmo will be the starting 5
gallo aint playin the 2

Click to expand...

Did not know that he refused to give Frye for Garnett.... If that is true, there is no one that can defend this man as a GM!! I was told that McHale didn't want to help the Knicks out and had an allegiance to Boston...

KBlack25 said:

Where in the trade does it say that? I'm not saying Coon is not a recognized capologist, and usually I trust his opinion, but he is not infallible. The way I understand the trade, still, is that there is a right to swap in 2011, and our pick in 2012. Find me an article, a document, something about the JEfferies trade that says otherwise.

Click to expand...

I also heard Mike Francessa explain the same thing a few weeks back when discussing the possibility of a Melo trade to NY so maybe your info is wrong.... Just saying.... I also asked Tommy Dee and he said no as well but did not go into as much explanation as Coons did but still said no.

TR1LL10N said:

That's fine, I wasn't aware of the 7 year rule but it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong about how you are interpreting the 2 consecutive year 1st rnd. draft pick rule.

Click to expand...

By the way, that picture of the 2 NY city dancers is just way hot!!! Man, makes realize the FIRST thing(s) I would buy if I won the lottery!!!!!

hometheaterguy said:

Did not know that he refused to give Frye for Garnett.... If that is true, there is no one that can defend this man as a GM!! I was told that McHale didn't want to help the Knicks out and had an allegiance to Boston...

Click to expand...

We traded Frye a month before KG got traded...I'm not sure if it is true (and haven't seen any evidence that it is), and Isiah was horrible with or without this fact...but I'm not sure how true it is.