The trade that has bothered you the most from the Isiah era...

B

Blas

Benchwarmer
Hey guys,

After watching some of the first games of basketball last night, I started remembering some of our trades that Isiah made. I was wondering which ones have bothered you the most. I do not necessarily mean the worst trade, just one that when you watch a game you get riled up over.

Last night I was reminded of the one that bothers me the most while watching the Laker's game... Ariza. I really wish he was still a knick. He keeps getting better and better every year and the kid plays some good D. He also could put down some nice dunks. Granted we ended up with Randolph when it is all said and done; however, I rather have Ariza on our squad.

How about yours?
 
K

KBlack25

Starter
I think Eddy Curry and Antonio Davis for Mike Sweetney, Tim Thomas, 1 First Rounders and 2 Second Rounders must take the cake. This is because not only did we give up one first rounder, Mike Sweetney was a first rounder from a few years before and to trade Curry now they might have to package him with a first rounder for someone to be interested in taking him. Curry could end up costing us THREE first rounders in the end, along with 2 second rounders. That's our whole draft for 2 full years and then some...
 
P

Paul1355

All Star
This is a realy tough question.



So far the move to pay Jerome James 5 mil a year or Malik Rose getting 8 mil a year is the worst. None of these guys were ever worth a half of that. Even Jeffires at a 5 year 30 mil contract is ridiculous.
 
OriginalKnickGrandson

OriginalKnickGrandson

Starter
Top to bottom, bad Zeke!

Trade- Curry (useless for us and we gave away a boatload of draft picks)

Signing- James ( avraged what 5 million per 1 complete game a season
combined?)

Draft Choice- Channing Frye over Andrew Bynum (self explanitory)
 
LJ4ptplay

LJ4ptplay

Starter
Good question.

#1 - Eddy Curry trade
#2 - Zach trade
#3 - Marbury trade

It's a tough question. I struggled between Eddy and Zach. Thinking of the players we could have drafted instead of Eddy (Bynum, Aldridge, etc) made me pick the Eddy trade as the worst. Especially now that he's not even in the lineup.

Though, having Channing Frye and future cap space sounds pretty good right now. I'm not saying Frye is great, but he and Lee had good chemistry and can run in D'Antoni's system better than Zach. Plus, we would only have to worry about dumping two bad contracts instead of three.
 
K

KBlack25

Starter
LJ4ptplay said:
Good question.

#1 - Eddy Curry trade
#2 - Zach trade
#3 - Marbury trade

It's a tough question. I struggled between Eddy and Zach. Thinking of the players we could have drafted instead of Eddy (Bynum, Aldridge, etc) made me pick the Eddy trade as the worst. Especially now that he's not even in the lineup.

Though, having Channing Frye and future cap space sounds pretty good right now. I'm not saying Frye is great, but he and Lee had good chemistry and can run in D'Antoni's system better than Zach. Plus, we would only have to worry about dumping two bad contracts instead of three.
Click to expand...

Do you have any basis whatsoever for this? How many regular season games have you seen Zach play under D'Antoni? Zero? What about Frye? Also zero? So how do you know that Frye can run in D'Antoni's system better than Zach? I actually watched a game where Frye played (last night) and he was straight up terrible. The Randolph trade got rid of Steve Francis, it wasn't that bad of a deal at all.
 
LJ4ptplay

LJ4ptplay

Starter
KBlack25 said:
Do you have any basis whatsoever for this? How many regular season games have you seen Zach play under D'Antoni? Zero? What about Frye? Also zero? So how do you know that Frye can run in D'Antoni's system better than Zach? I actually watched a game where Frye played (last night) and he was straight up terrible. The Randolph trade got rid of Steve Francis, it wasn't that bad of a deal at all.
Click to expand...

I base the Zach trade as one of the worst more on salary cap than anything else. I would much rather have Frye and salary cap relief than Zach right now. It's my own personal opinion that Frye may work better than Zach in D'Antoni's system. Frye is quicker, has a comparable outside shot to Zach, and seemed to play well with Lee. Would you rather be in the cap situation we're in right now with Zach, or would you rather have salary cap freedom in 2010 with Frye at the Center spot in D'Anotni's system? Remember, Francis' contract would have expired by now.
 
K

KBlack25

Starter
LJ4ptplay said:
I base the Zach trade as one of the worst more on salary cap than anything else. I would much rather have Frye and salary cap relief than Zach right now. It's my own personal opinion that Frye may work better than Zach in D'Antoni's system. Frye is quicker, has a comparable outside shot to Zach, and seemed to play well with Lee. Would you rather be in the cap situation we're in right now with Zach, or would you rather have salary cap freedom in 2010 with Frye at the Center spot in D'Anotni's system? Remember, Francis' contract would have expired by now.
Click to expand...

If the Knicks stay put they will be under the cap by 2010. The Knicks are about 40 mil over the cap, after this year they lose Marbury (20 mil), James (6 mil), Rose (7.5 mil) and after next season they lose Curry (9 mil) and QRich (8 mil) and I think maybe even Duhon (5.5 mil) so over the next 2 years that's 56 mil give or take off the books, leaving the Knicks 16 mil UNDER the cap with Larry Bird Rules on most of the guys (Lee, Robinson, Chandler, Gallo) they'd need to resign and with the valuable expiring contract of Zach Randolph.

So to answer your question, I'd much rather have Zach than Frye, who is a scrub.

Edit: Not to mention Zach STILL WENT 17/10 LAST YEAR! He looks good in D'Antoni's system and I think by January everyone on this board will be eating their words.
 
LJ4ptplay

LJ4ptplay

Starter
KBlack25 said:
If the Knicks stay put they will be under the cap by 2010. The Knicks are about 40 mil over the cap, after this year they lose Marbury (20 mil), James (6 mil), Rose (7.5 mil) and after next season they lose Curry (9 mil) and QRich (8 mil) and I think maybe even Duhon (5.5 mil) so over the next 2 years that's 56 mil give or take off the books, leaving the Knicks 16 mil UNDER the cap with Larry Bird Rules on most of the guys (Lee, Robinson, Chandler, Gallo) they'd need to resign and with the valuable expiring contract of Zach Randolph.

So to answer your question, I'd much rather have Zach than Frye, who is a scrub.

Edit: Not to mention Zach STILL WENT 17/10 LAST YEAR! He looks good in D'Antoni's system and I think by January everyone on this board will be eating their words.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Zach, Curry, Crawford and Jeffries dont expire until the end of the 2010-2011 season. Moving a combination of those players is crucial to getting under the cap and signing multiple free agents in 2010. Jerome James, Q Rich and Chris Duhon expire at the end of the 2009-2010 season. I would much rather have a chance at getting Lebron than having Zach. Wouldn't you?
 
K

KBlack25

Starter
LJ4ptplay said:
Wrong. Zach, Curry, Crawford and Jeffries dont expire until the end of the 2010-2011 season. Moving a combination of those players is crucial to getting under the cap and signing multiple free agents in 2010. Jerome James, Q Rich and Chris Duhon expire at the end of the 2009-2010 season. I would much rather have a chance at getting Lebron than having Zach. Wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

I said nothing of Jeffries nor Crawford. Curry has 2 yrs left, not 3 according to ESPN.com. James has a year but a player option which he may or may not take, either way he's out before the 2010 off season. The 2010 offseason is when LeBron is available. So even if we don't have Zach, Craw or Jeffries expire, we would see Eddy, James, Q, Duhon, Marbury and Malik Rose totaling 48 million, leaving them 8 under the cap allowing for wiggle room in a sign and trade (say, Zach Randolph expiring for LeBron @ 22 mil (which is about what the Knicks would have left to spend if you count the 8 under the cap and the 14 Zach has) which is a ton of money....Remember though, there is NO GUARANTEE LeBron is out of Cleveland, he has a player option for 2010-11. Same with Bosh and Wade.

The Knicks, like I said, if they stay put, will have an opportunity to make moves in 2010 or even in 2011 if that's when the bigger guys come out.
 
DaTPRiNCE

DaTPRiNCE

The Knicks are Back
hands down the Curry trade the Ariza trade.........and drafting Fyre over Bynum and paying James 5 mil, Rose 8mil are easily the worst moves which is what ****ed us over
 
LJ4ptplay

LJ4ptplay

Starter
KBlack25 said:
I said nothing of Jeffries nor Crawford. Curry has 2 yrs left, not 3 according to ESPN.com. James has a year but a player option which he may or may not take, either way he's out before the 2010 off season. The 2010 offseason is when LeBron is available. So even if we don't have Zach, Craw or Jeffries expire, we would see Eddy, James, Q, Duhon, Marbury and Malik Rose totaling 48 million, leaving them 8 under the cap allowing for wiggle room in a sign and trade (say, Zach Randolph expiring for LeBron @ 22 mil (which is about what the Knicks would have left to spend if you count the 8 under the cap and the 14 Zach has) which is a ton of money....Remember though, there is NO GUARANTEE LeBron is out of Cleveland, he has a player option for 2010-11. Same with Bosh and Wade.

The Knicks, like I said, if they stay put, will have an opportunity to make moves in 2010 or even in 2011 if that's when the bigger guys come out.
Click to expand...

I still think you're wrong about Curry. I'm pretty sure his contract is the same length as Zach, Jeffries and Crawford. The fact is, if we hold onto all of those players we won't be able to entice the big-time free agents out of their player options. Why do you think Donnie is trying to trade these guys? Just for the hell of it? Wake up. If we were going to be under the cap in 2 years, Donnie wouldn't be trying to move pieces that expire in 3. I guess you would rather have Zach and hope for the ability to do a sign and trade, rather than just sign the free-agent straight up. Why do you like Zach so much? Instead of contributing to this thread, you're spending a lot of time defending a guy who is going to be traded soon.
 
K

KBlack25

Starter
LJ4ptplay said:
I still think you're wrong about Curry. I'm pretty sure his contract is the same length as Zach, Jeffries and Crawford. The fact is, if we hold onto all of those players we won't be able to entice the big-time free agents out of their player options. Why do you think Donnie is trying to trade these guys? Just for the hell of it? Wake up. If we were going to be under the cap in 2 years, Donnie wouldn't be trying to move pieces that expire in 3. I guess you would rather have Zach and hope for the ability to do a sign and trade, rather than just sign the free-agent straight up. Why do you like Zach so much? Instead of contributing to this thread, you're spending a lot of time defending a guy who is going to be traded soon.
Click to expand...

Well here's my counter argument, if Donnie was so desperate to trade Zach and get under the cap why didn't he take the Clipper deal when it was on the table? Sure, it was lopsided like crazy, but the fact of the matter is if Donnie was THAT desperate Zach would've already been out of town. You say Donnie is trying to trade these guys, I say he's listening to offers. But that's what a president should do, listen and consider.

I've done the math for you, the Knicks WILL be under the cap if they stay put. The numbers don't lie. The Knicks are not solely responsible for trying to entice guys out of their player options, rather it is the market in general. You think every player is going to say "Wow, the Knicks have cap room, I'm going to opt out." NO! They are going to examine the market as a whole, see what their options are and make a decision.

Why do I like Zach? Well he went 17/10 last year like I said. Is he the best defensive player on the floor? No, not at all. But he's slimmed down noticeably, he's trying to move the ball up the floor and hustle and unlike some people on this team (Eddy Curry), it looks like he's really trying to fit into the system. I understand he had off court problems, he was a head case and a temper issue but I really believe he's grown into a serviceable player. Honestly look around the league at other PFs, how many finished with the type of numbers Zach finished with last year? It isn't many...
 
LJ4ptplay

LJ4ptplay

Starter
KBlack25 said:
Well here's my counter argument, if Donnie was so desperate to trade Zach and get under the cap why didn't he take the Clipper deal when it was on the table? Sure, it was lopsided like crazy, but the fact of the matter is if Donnie was THAT desperate Zach would've already been out of town. You say Donnie is trying to trade these guys, I say he's listening to offers. But that's what a president should do, listen and consider.

I've done the math for you, the Knicks WILL be under the cap if they stay put. The numbers don't lie. The Knicks are not solely responsible for trying to entice guys out of their player options, rather it is the market in general. You think every player is going to say "Wow, the Knicks have cap room, I'm going to opt out." NO! They are going to examine the market as a whole, see what their options are and make a decision.

Why do I like Zach? Well he went 17/10 last year like I said. Is he the best defensive player on the floor? No, not at all. But he's slimmed down noticeably, he's trying to move the ball up the floor and hustle and unlike some people on this team (Eddy Curry), it looks like he's really trying to fit into the system. I understand he had off court problems, he was a head case and a temper issue but I really believe he's grown into a serviceable player. Honestly look around the league at other PFs, how many finished with the type of numbers Zach finished with last year? It isn't many...
Click to expand...

Your argument argued against itself. If Zach is so great, why do we have to give up 1st round picks in order to get rid of him? Which is what the Clippers deal and the Memphis deal required. He is not good for any team, especially the Knicks. I don't care if he averaged 17 and 10. He's still bad for this team. I have yet to see him play this year, so if he changes then great. But we still need to trade him. The point of trading him is to get enough under the cap so we can sign big-time free agents. Which we won't be able to do if he is still with this team (as well as Curry, Crawford and Jeffires). At least 2 of those contracts needs to go before the end of next season. If we don't, we may be under the cap, but won't be able to offer big contracts to big free agents and won't be able to sign Lee, Nate and Chandler as well.
 
Last edited:
K

KBlack25

Starter
LJ4ptplay said:
Your argument argued against itself. If Zach is so great, why do we have to give up 1st round picks in order to get rid of him? Which is what the Clippers deal and the Memphis deal required. He is not good for any team, especially the Knicks. I don't care if he averaged 17 and 10. He's still bad for this team. I have yet to see him play this year, so if he changes then great. But we still need to trade him. The point of trading him is to get enough under the cap so we can sign big-time free agents. Which we won't be able to do if he is still with this team (as well as Curry, Crawford and Jeffires). At least 2 of those contracts needs to go before the end of next season. We may be under the cap, but won't be able to offer big contracts to big free agents and won't be able to sign Lee, Nate and Chandler as well.
Click to expand...

No it didn't. I never said Zach was so great. You just put up a strawman to avoid answering my question. If Zach needs to be traded so badly, why didn't they just let him go when they could? Maybe it's because he DOESN'T need to be traded so badly.

Zach looked pretty good in preseason, at least with certain guys surrounding him. He got up the floor in transition, he hustled, he made shots, he made his layups, he rebounded. It just seems like there is nothing Zach Randolph can do to appease you people, you'll always hate on him, despite whatever numbers he puts up.

YOU are the one who seems desperate to get Zach out, but when you need to include a first rounder all of a sudden you want to keep him? Honestly, if it was Curry and a First Rounder for basically anything I'd be okay with it, I think most people on here would be okay with it too. The fact that Zach and a first rounder was too much for some to give up (including, apparently, you), that means Zach must have SOME value.
 
LJ4ptplay

LJ4ptplay

Starter
KBlack25 said:
No it didn't. I never said Zach was so great. You just put up a strawman to avoid answering my question. If Zach needs to be traded so badly, why didn't they just let him go when they could? Maybe it's because he DOESN'T need to be traded so badly.

Zach looked pretty good in preseason, at least with certain guys surrounding him. He got up the floor in transition, he hustled, he made shots, he made his layups, he rebounded. It just seems like there is nothing Zach Randolph can do to appease you people, you'll always hate on him, despite whatever numbers he puts up.

YOU are the one who seems desperate to get Zach out, but when you need to include a first rounder all of a sudden you want to keep him? Honestly, if it was Curry and a First Rounder for basically anything I'd be okay with it, I think most people on here would be okay with it too. The fact that Zach and a first rounder was too much for some to give up (including, apparently, you), that means Zach must have SOME value.
Click to expand...

Very little value, obviously. I hate his contract mostly, but I wasn't impressed with him at all last year either. The whole point of my argument was his contract and how it needs to be moved in order to sign free agents. His contract is the largest with the longest term. If he changes, and increases his value so we don't have to give up a first rounder, then great. That's why Donnie didn't take those deals. He wants to see if their values will increase this year so we don't have to get ass-raped in order to move them, not because he has value. The fact remains, if Zach is still here, we won't be able to sign big name free agents and keep our good players. Therefore, he must go.
 
K

KBlack25

Starter
LJ4ptplay said:
Very little value, obviously. I hate his contract mostly, but I wasn't impressed with him at all last year either. The whole point of my argument was his contract and how it needs to be moved in order to sign free agents. His contract is the largest with the longest term. If he changes, and increases his value so we don't have to give up a first rounder, then great. That's why Donnie didn't take those deals. He wants to see if their values will increase this year so we don't have to get ass-raped in order to move them, not because he has value. The fact remains, if Zach is still here, we won't be able to sign big name free agents and keep our good players. Therefore, he must go.
Click to expand...

I'm still not sure this is entirely true. Does Zach have the most wonderful contract in the world? Definitely not, I agree with you. If Zach had no value he would have moved him, even the potential to increase his trade value is value. But I think the Knicks can make moves for big names because of the flexibility of the salary cap in the NBA. There are ways to bend things the way you want to in the NBA.

To be honest with you I think teams got used to stealing from the Knicks, and that's where these bonehead moves came from. Teams don't want to pay the Knicks equal value right now because they think they don't have to. I think Donnie is on the path to change it...

In the end we have to agree to disagree. But in the end in terms of talent there is no way the Knicks lost out in the Randolph trade...
 
J

jpz17

Starter
man, Bynum is the most overrated player I've ever seen. You have to admit, hes unproven. Last time I saw him play, he was sloppy. Rookie like. Sorry off-topic. I say the Curry trade because of the picks we sent them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top