Official Rubio Rumormill

smokes

Huge Member
While I agree Chandler is somewhat replaceable he is one of the few above average players on the Knicks. Chandler, Lee, Nate and Harrington imo are the only big keepers. Possibly Wilcox too. Gallo I just haven't seen enough of to decide but he won't be traded anyway.
 

smokes

Huge Member
If we end up moving Lee/Nate I would be quite high on getting Ben Gordon in FA. He's the kind of 2nd option you want on offense for a superstar player. He can really light it up when he gets going, plus hes a decent 2 way player.
 

SSj4Wingzero

All Star
Thats not even a fact...you're acting like Chandler is a SPEED DEMON, he's average at some things and below average at a lot of things.

At best, he's good.

We don't need good.

We need great.

Gallinari is going to be a great player in this league...even if his post defense is bad, he tries all the time on defense, and you can't say that about Chandler, who got softer game by game.

Honestly, the only thing that is going to change your mind is what will happen in the future.

You use to believe Crawford and Curry would lead the Knicks to winning...I told you they wouldn't. I got bashed by others for not being a "true Knick fan". Look at the results now. A couple of seasons waste with one of the worst experiments in sports history directed by IT.

Keeping Chandler is an Isiah move...we can't continue losing ways like this.

Chandler's value is good right now; we need to use it to improve the team.

D'Antoni likes an 8 man rotation
Right, it is

Duhon
Hughes
Gallinari
Harrington
Darko

Bench
Hill
Douglas
Jefferies

Missing like aways
Chandler

Too below average.

Worst backcourt in the NBA.
A frontcourt with no chemistry playing together, but having potential, size, and versatility.

This spells little success for the Knicks.

Only a fool would enter the 2009-10 season with that roster.
A FOOL.

Walsh understands he needs to make big changes now.

Keep
Danilo
Hill
Douglas
Darko

Sale
Duhon
Hughes
Harrington
Chandler

Duhon and Hughes are way too inefficient for a backcourt.
Even a rookie PG like Rubio is capable of producing more efficiency than those two.

Getting Rubio would secure us at the PG for a decade and a half.
Gallo got the 3.
Hill at the 4/5
If Darko makes a comeback, he got the 5.

All we need is a 2.

Chandler isn't a 2.
Anyone thinks so needs to look up Knicks tapes and watch him play.
Poor shooter.
Poor handles.
Not an intelligent player
Not aggressive enough.

We need a 2.
Big time two...Rubio, Gallo, Hill, Darko aren't going to beat you with their scoring.

SOOOO...Walsh should put those goes on sell and try to nab a high scoring 2 guard for RENT...even a guy like Ricky Davis or Corey Maggette would be nice.

Or we could move Gallo who does have handles, passing ability and great 3pt range at the 2, and use Harrington as our primary scoring option...though that won't spell much success since he's not efficient due to his poor shot selection/shoot percentage.

I LOVE THE KNICKS.

I know why you guys feel like I'm hating on ya boy.
But I just want the BEST for the team.
I said the same exact shit about Crawford, Curry, and Frye.

People were in love with their potential and felt they were untradable.

Look at those three now...Atlanta won't probably make the playoffs now since Jamal Crawford has that losing curse he brings to all the teams in the NBA...poor atlanta, they were on the rise and gave GS a GIFT.

Agreed with...most of it. I wouldn't trade Chandler if we didn't HAVE to but if it meant getting Rubio I'd give him up in a heartbeat since I do think Rubio is that good. Chandler is a decent player but we don't need another small forward and he's got high value now if we trade him. As of right now we have no backcourt whatsoever. Our frontcourt isn't terrible with Harrington (effective scorer), Darko (good shotblocker and defender), and Gallinari (good all-around player with excellent shooting) not to mention Hill as an effective backup for his first year and probably an F/C on our team for years to come. But we're currently starting Duhon and Larry Hughes. That might be one of the worst backcourts in the NBA. Rubio would be a start. But we need a quality shooting guard. Danilo is a good ball handler and shooter, but I don't think he's the scoring threat you want from the 2. I don't know what we'll do about it; perhaps we'll hold on to Hughes for now and go after a 2 guard in 2010 free agency?
 

smokes

Huge Member
The best 2 guard we could realistically get is Ben Gordon. In 2010 its DWade/Joe Johnson/Kobe who are going to have to be the main FA signing if we are to take one of them.

I wouldn't be mad building around Wade but he's such an unlikely pickup that we don't have much chance.
 

donchris

Next season, keep waiting
Knicks are 14-14 with Gallinari.
Chandler isn't an aggressive player with a soft gentle game who doesn't make his teammates better.
Chandler isn't a great shooter like Gallinari.

Gallinari isn't the athlete Chandler is but has ability to get to the free throw line.

Even with a bad back, Gallinari was more agressive than Chandler last year.

Gallinari is a better perimeter defender also...despite what people expected him to be.

Trading Gallinari is something you would say.
I guess Isiah's cock is still in your mouth, thats why your afraid to let go of Wilson.

Its time to move on completely from Isiah.

No Nate
No Wilson
No Dave
No Jared
No Curry

^ They contribute to losing, except for Lee.

Yes Danilo
Yes Tony
Yes Jordan
Yes Darko
Yes Hughes
Yes Harrington
Yes Duhon
Yes Wilcox
Yes Sene

^ This is a much more better formula for our team.

How can you seriously depend on Wilson Chandler, whos probably the least aggressive player on this team?

This coming from the biggest Marbury dickrider in league history. Gallo aint that great. He scored 17 points in one game, WOW! That's ****ing amazing.

Chandler scored 32 points against the Raptors in his second season and you believe his ceiling is low? Giving up on him after only two season huh?

So by your logic everyone that played in the Thomas era must go except Lee because you like him. But Robinson contributed to losing? (flawed logic) Did the same logic apply to Marbury? Of course not, you're too busy consuming Marbury's man chowder to think clearly.

I'm not saying Gallo isn't good, he's just not proven, not in the NBA. Potential is subjective. Everyone's got potential one way or another.

Eddie Curry has potential to loose weight
Marbury has potential to pass first and take some public speaking classes
Chandler has 'potential' to be the Knicks top score, so does Gallo and Al Harrington.

But potential means little without results. Maybe Gallo's back is in good condition or maybe it will be a reoccurring issue for the rest of his career. If thats the case the best he's going to get is 17 off the bench. Wilson is Gallos insurance policy. If the great white hope doesn't pan out you've got a guy that has proven he can perform on an NBA level.
 

donchris

Next season, keep waiting
Agreed with...most of it. I wouldn't trade Chandler if we didn't HAVE to but if it meant getting Rubio I'd give him up in a heartbeat since I do think Rubio is that good. Chandler is a decent player but we don't need another small forward and he's got high value now if we trade him. As of right now we have no backcourt whatsoever. Our frontcourt isn't terrible with Harrington (effective scorer), Darko (good shotblocker and defender), and Gallinari (good all-around player with excellent shooting) not to mention Hill as an effective backup for his first year and probably an F/C on our team for years to come. But we're currently starting Duhon and Larry Hughes. That might be one of the worst backcourts in the NBA. Rubio would be a start. But we need a quality shooting guard. Danilo is a good ball handler and shooter, but I don't think he's the scoring threat you want from the 2. I don't know what we'll do about it; perhaps we'll hold on to Hughes for now and go after a 2 guard in 2010 free agency?

Here's the thing, there should be a limit of what you give up to get a player, as specially one that can't score. The Knicks don't have many assets. They've got the expiring contracts of Nate Robinson and David Lee, they've got Catino Mobely's contract which 80% is covered by insurance, they've got potentially injury prone Gallinari, a few new draft picks and Wilson Chandler. Anyone else will be hard to move. The only keepers long term are Wilson Chandler Danilo Gallinari and possibly Al Harrington. This is why Chandler, and yes, even Gallo should not be packaged in any trade.
 

donchris

Next season, keep waiting
Thats not even a fact...you're acting like Chandler is a SPEED DEMON, he's average at some things and below average at a lot of things.

At best, he's good.

We don't need good.

We need great.

Are you a bot? You be saying some stupid shit man.

Keeping Chandler is an Isiah move...we can't continue losing ways like this.

For someone that hates Isiah you sure talk about him all the time. He's gone, move on....

If Darko makes a comeback, he got the 5.

You believe in Darko but criticize me for believing in Curry when he was actually doing something. What has Darko done? He came in playing like shit from jump. This statement discusses me.
 

Knicker23

Benchwarmer
I don't understand these lineups...you don't have Nate or Lee, but you don't have anyone replacing them either...you think we're just going to let those guys drop and get nothing in return or?
 

smokes

Huge Member
Come on now, we managed 9 pages without Starbury wars in this thread let's try to keep this clean!
 

dave2138

Rotation player
It seems that Minnesota is fine with letting Rubio play in Europe for 1 or 2 years as evident to the Flynn signing. Why trade Foye for Rubio and then trade Rubio for Chandler? Makes no sense.

Trading Foye for Rubio with the mindset to wait 2 years for Rubio to come over is a pretty good strategy for Minnesota. It benefits them to be bad for the next 2 years since their 1st round pick is only protected if it is in the bottom 10.

Minnesota is looking pretty good for the long term with the way they are building.

2007 - Jefferson
2008 - Love
2009 - Flynn and Ellington
2010 - Most likely 3 1st round picks, 2 in the top 15. (Minnesota, Charlotte and Utah)
2011 - Rubio comes to US..trade him or Flynn


As far as trading Wilson Chandler goes.. He should have more trade value next off season anyway. So wait another year to decide whether or not to give him a long term deal or trade him with an expiring contract (Curry/Jefferies) for a proven player to go with Lebron, Stoudemire or Bosh
 

mafra

Legend
It seems that Minnesota is fine with letting Rubio play in Europe for 1 or 2 years as evident to the Flynn signing. Why trade Foye for Rubio and then trade Rubio for Chandler? Makes no sense.

Trading Foye for Rubio with the mindset to wait 2 years for Rubio to come over is a pretty good strategy for Minnesota. It benefits them to be bad for the next 2 years since their 1st round pick is only protected if it is in the bottom 10.

Minnesota is looking pretty good for the long term with the way they are building.

2007 - Jefferson
2008 - Love
2009 - Flynn and Ellington
2010 - Most likely 3 1st round picks, 2 in the top 15. (Minnesota, Charlotte and Utah)
2011 - Rubio comes to US..trade him or Flynn


As far as trading Wilson Chandler goes.. He should have more trade value next off season anyway. So wait another year to decide whether or not to give him a long term deal or trade him with an expiring contract (Curry/Jefferies) for a proven player to go with Lebron, Stoudemire or Bosh

I tend to agree... Sounds like Minny is content to wait this thing out.... Who knows what teams will offer them for Rubio's right next year? Or even the year after?

Still, it is odd for a GM to come to a new team, and his first moves are to trade his backcourt and then use his 1st draft pick on an "assett" he may not get anything from the next 2 years?

A good way to help whoever takes his job, right?

However, unless Minny wants Nate or Lee... I don't see this trade happening.

I doubt DW even wants to give up Chandler. Again, he can sign Kidd or trade for Nash, hold tight for a year and see if the price for Rubio comes down in a year anyway?
 

Arod2k9

Benchwarmer
It seems that Minnesota is fine with letting Rubio play in Europe for 1 or 2 years as evident to the Flynn signing. Why trade Foye for Rubio and then trade Rubio for Chandler? Makes no sense.

Trading Foye for Rubio with the mindset to wait 2 years for Rubio to come over is a pretty good strategy for Minnesota. It benefits them to be bad for the next 2 years since their 1st round pick is only protected if it is in the bottom 10.

Minnesota is looking pretty good for the long term with the way they are building.

2007 - Jefferson
2008 - Love
2009 - Flynn and Ellington
2010 - Most likely 3 1st round picks, 2 in the top 15. (Minnesota, Charlotte and Utah)
2011 - Rubio comes to US..trade him or Flynn


As far as trading Wilson Chandler goes.. He should have more trade value next off season anyway. So wait another year to decide whether or not to give him a long term deal or trade him with an expiring contract (Curry/Jefferies) for a proven player to go with Lebron, Stoudemire or Bosh

I totally disagree with you since you or Wolves GM can't justify trading 2 guards (Foye/Miller) for nothing and without any guarantees that Rubio will ever come to the Wolves. Without Miller and Foye the Wolves are without a backcourt! They were also your best passers and best shooters on the team, they are hanging Flynn putting so much pressure on him to succeed with the worst team in basketball.

I'll say it now the Wolves will win 15 games next season and will probably draft Wall, but not even that justifies not getting anything in return for Rubio right now. If he would have been drafted then fine keep him in Europe as long as you need, but they traded for him and Rubio doesn't want to report to them. Now he's entertaining offers to play in Spain or Turkey and what is Kahn gonna do just wait till is 2013 to realize that Rubio doesn't to be in Minnesota. The logic to wait on a player is good when you have good team already in place, but not when you have a piece of crap team. If I were a Wolves fan I'll be pissed as hell, is as if listening to Isiah again when Kahn speaks.

Wolves need to get something now before the season stars, they need a new coach and they need to know what the hell they are doing. This guy Kahn has no clue whatsoever and will be worse than Kevin Mchale. At least Mchale drafted Kevin Garnett and envision a tandem with Marbury would work. It didn't but at least he knew what he was doing. Kahn is the dumbest GM in the NBA, a complete idiot and I find it hard to believe than some would support him.
 
Last edited:

Wolvesfan

Rookie
Ummm. I'm a Wolves fan and I have zero problem with the Rubio pick. I have no problem with him sitting in Spain for a couple years. Are the Wolves ready to win now? Heck no. But in a year or 2 I feel they will be pretty competitive. With any luck at all, Rubio will improve his game over there and actually increase his trade value.

This whole situation is bunk. You entered a draft, play for the team that drafted you. If you want a bigger market play out your years and do it. This crap is really starting to create an uneven playing field and isn't helping the game any.
 

smokes

Huge Member
It seems that Minnesota is fine with letting Rubio play in Europe for 1 or 2 years as evident to the Flynn signing. Why trade Foye for Rubio and then trade Rubio for Chandler? Makes no sense.

Trading Foye for Rubio with the mindset to wait 2 years for Rubio to come over is a pretty good strategy for Minnesota. It benefits them to be bad for the next 2 years since their 1st round pick is only protected if it is in the bottom 10.

Minnesota is looking pretty good for the long term with the way they are building.

2007 - Jefferson
2008 - Love
2009 - Flynn and Ellington
2010 - Most likely 3 1st round picks, 2 in the top 15. (Minnesota, Charlotte and Utah)
2011 - Rubio comes to US..trade him or Flynn


As far as trading Wilson Chandler goes.. He should have more trade value next off season anyway. So wait another year to decide whether or not to give him a long term deal or trade him with an expiring contract (Curry/Jefferies) for a proven player to go with Lebron, Stoudemire or Bosh

Err, the Wolves may be fine with it but that's part of the reason they are complete idiots (if they are even fine with it, more likely blowing smoke). Why wouldn't they trade Foye when they need a SF and there was 0 quality SF's in this draft? You can't compare 6'4 Foye to 6'8 Chandler so don't even try. Of course it makes sense if you want to get a solid young SF then get someone who a lot of people want and watch the offers flood in, not hard to see.

Waiting 2 years for a player is the most idiotic notion ever. Why would he improve so much in Europe when he's already played in that league for several years? Why risk letting him get injured again in a much more physical league? He doesn't want to play in Minny now and he won't in 2 years in fact he'd more likely start resenting them for drafting him and letting him rot in Spain when he should be NBA bound by now, his self confessed dream since he was a kid.

The only part of your post that makes sense is the last part, sure Wilson would have more value next year. However we have SF Harrington and SF Gallinari already battling for minutes at the spot, we can resign Harrington for a low amount in 2010 and have a very decent pair of 3's. Chandler is great and I like him a lot but Rubio is a need and a very promising player, more so than Chandler.
 

smokes

Huge Member
According to RealGM today Wolves turned down 8th + Chandler for 5th. I heard it was the other way round that they declined a trade for 5th because Chandler wasn't offered. Also turned down an offer from Houston of Battier + Brooks, though I can see why since Flynn will probably = Brooks and Battier is weak.

Wolves are idiots no doubt.
 
Top