Trading Gallo or Randolph for Carmelo will fail us.

M

moneyg

Starter
hometheaterguy said:
Again, now you are asking Denver to not only give us Melo for Curry, Gallinari and Randolph you also want them to throw in JR or Affalo?!?! Listen, Curry, DG and AR are not enough to get Melo alone never mind having Denver "sweeten" the pot! You guys throw trades out that just aren't in any realms of reality!! I mentioned Rose as part of the Melo trade because that is the reality of what it would take to land a super-star; a star or potential star. Chicago knows this and that' why they are trying desperately to give up anyone but Rose and Noah but in the end, they know that there will have to be one of them along with a salary match and Deng is that salary. The problem is Denver does not want Deng's contract. The trade scenario I thew out is a realistic one; one that has some facts behind it. There has been some leaks that Chicago would part with Rose for Melo but not Rose AND a #1. I think they would throw in a #2 with Rose and a salary. If the Knicks offered Curry's expiring contract and gave them a replacement guard in Douglas... That would give Chicago exactly what they need to pull it off and still have something at the 1 in the end. Douglas for Deng is worth it right??? Since Curry is a non factor anyway you are essentially trading Douglas for Deng...
The reality is Melo will either resign with Denver (I think in the end that's what he will do) or will go with a trade to any of the 4/5 teams that he listed. The Knicks have the least chance out off all the teams listed. If the Knicks could grab Melo for Randolph, Curry and Gallinari.... I would pull the trigger on that deal in a nano-second! Denver wouldn't even have time to finish saying the word yes and I would have those 3 guys on a plane going to Denver!
Click to expand...

ummmmmm.. denver want to get rid of JR and his 6 mil salary.. how is that sweeten the pot for us.. it helps denver financially... the thread is about trading gallo and radolph.. and i would trade both with curry and a 2014 for melo like yesterday..

r u typin just to type

and yes gallo and randolph with curry expiring and a 2014 is enough to get melo.. idont see a better deal unless chi includes noah ....and melo decides to sign with them.. other than that.. he not signing an extension

so bye bye gallo and randolph... for melo..
 
hometheaterguy

hometheaterguy

Knicks Guru
moneyg said:
ummmmmm.. denver want to get rid of JR and his 6 mil salary.. how is that sweeten the pot for us.. it helps denver financially... the thread is about trading gallo and radolph.. and i would trade both with curry and a 2014 for melo like yesterday..

r u typin just to type

and yes gallo and randolph with curry expiring and a 2014 is enough to get melo.. idont see a better deal unless chi includes noah ....and melo decides to sign with them.. other than that.. he not signing an extension

so bye bye gallo and randolph... for melo..
Click to expand...

OK, let's address this:
1) NY can NOT trade a draft pick because they have already traded their 2012 away (To Houston) and CBA rules do not allow teams to trade draft picks 2 years in a row so that takes away that option... This is known as the "Ted Stepien Rule." Denver will not want to wait for a pick that is many years down the line. They can't trade their 2014 because Houston can wait to take their pick and hold off until 2013 instead... The Knicks gave Houston that option in the Jeffries/T-Mac trade. So they would have to offer a 2015 or 16.... Denver doesn't want to wait until then!!

2) JR Smith alone will bring back something from the open market and Denver knows this. JR Smith by himself has value. You want to add him to a superstar and trade both of them for essentially Gallinari and Randolph.... JR Smith by himself could warrant one of those guys...... Never mind the fact that if Denver does trade Melo they might want to keep JR Smith; at least to the end of the season unless they get a great offer. Also, JR Smith has an expiring contract so they are in no hurry to dump him, they will hold him until they know what is going on with Melo and they will decide what to do at the end of the season... He goes no where.

3) So bye bye gallo and randolph... for melo...... Not in this life time!!! Gallo and Randolph might land you a quality player but NOT a super star... This is not a video game!!!! Wake up!!
 
Last edited:
M

moneyg

Starter
hometheaterguy said:
OK, let's address this:
1) NY can NOT trade a draft pick because they have already traded their 2012 away (To Houston) and CBA rules do not allow teams to trade draft picks 2 years in a row so that takes away that option... This is known as the "Ted Stepien Rule."

2) JR Smith alone will bring back something from the open market and Denver knows this. JR Smith by himself has value. You want to add him to a superstar and trade both of them for essentially Gallinari and Randolph.... JR Smith by himself could warrant one of those guys...... Never mind the fact that if Denver does trade Melo they might want to keep JR Smith; at least to the end of the season unless they get a great offer. Also, JR Smith has an expiring contract so they are in no hurry to dump him, they will hold him until they know what is going on with Melo and they will decide what to do at the end of the season... He goes no where.

3) So bye bye gallo and randolph... for melo...... Not in this life time!!! Gallo and Randolph might land you a quality player but NOT a super star... This is not a video game!!!! Wake up!!
Click to expand...

1) didnt i say a 2014 pick.. where u get 2012 from???? where????

2) jr smith.. cap relief .. they are over the luxry tax....also, denver plans to rebuild and jr is not in the plan

3) who offers a better package of players from a team that melo would sign an extension with.. who?????


go watch tv

typin just to type

CLOWNS
 
hometheaterguy

hometheaterguy

Knicks Guru
moneyg said:
1) didnt i say a 2014 pick.. where u get 2012 from???? where????

2) jr smith.. cap relief .. they are over the luxry tax....also, denver plans to rebuild and jr is not in the plan

3) who offers a better package of players from a team that melo would sign an extension with.. who?????


go watch tv

typin just to type

CLOWNS
Click to expand...

READ MY POST!!! I said that they CAN NOT offer their 2014 pick because they gave Houston the option to swap the 2012 with the Knicks 2013 if they want... That prevents them from offering their 2014...
Either you are too lazy to read or you do not know how to read!!! Either way you got it wrong.............. AGAIN!!! CLOWN!!!

How would Denver get cap relief unless they trade him to a team that is at least 7 million under the cap for a draft pick??????? So by keeping him and letting his contract expire at the end of THIS season they take him off the books along with other expiring contracts... AGAIN.................... CLOWN!!

Melo has given Denver at list of teams he is willing to get traded too; Kinicks, Bulls, Rockets are on that list and the Bulls and Rockets can offer better packages!
Clown!!!!! Loser!!!!!
 
K

KBlack25

Starter
hometheaterguy said:
READ MY POST!!! I said that they CAN NOT offer their 2014 pick because they gave Houston the option to swap the 2012 with the Knicks 2013 if they want... That prevents them from offering their 2014...
Either you are too lazy to read or you do not know how to read!!! Either way you got it wrong.............. AGAIN!!! CLOWN!!!
Click to expand...

You have this wrong.

The Rockets have the option to swap 2011 picks with us. So if we finish with the 15th pick and they have the 20th, they can swap with us. The Rockets also have our 2012 top 1 protected. This is done because we cannot trade our first round pick two years in a row. We can, however, give them our 2014 I believe, but not our 2013 because of the reason stated just previous.

This is my understanding of the Jefferies trade and the rules under the CBA. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.
 
hometheaterguy

hometheaterguy

Knicks Guru
KBlack25 said:
You have this wrong.

The Rockets have the option to swap 2011 picks with us. So if we finish with the 15th pick and they have the 20th, they can swap with us. The Rockets also have our 2012 top 1 protected. This is done because we cannot trade our first round pick two years in a row. We can, however, give them our 2014 I believe, but not our 2013 because of the reason stated just previous.

This is my understanding of the Jefferies trade and the rules under the CBA. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.
Click to expand...

From what I hear when they talk about the Knicks and draft picks it looks like they are ham-stringed until the following season when they can offer a future pick. From what I understand of the rule, you can't offer 2 future picks in a row now matter how many years apart they are (up to 7 according to the current CBA). The Knicks could trade someone else's pick that they got in a trade as long as it wasn't a first round swap....
 
K

KBlack25

Starter
hometheaterguy said:
From what I hear when they talk about the Knicks and draft picks it looks like they are ham-stringed until the following season when they can offer a future pick. From what I understand of the rule, you can't offer 2 future picks in a row now matter how many years apart they are (up to 7 according to the current CBA). The Knicks could trade someone else's pick that they got in a trade as long as it wasn't a first round swap....
Click to expand...

We did it in the Marbury deal...hence why we gave the Jazz (via Phoenix) our 2010 this year...I don't see how offering the 2014 pick when we have full rights to the 2013 is any different from what we did in 2004 with Phoenix.
 
hometheaterguy

hometheaterguy

Knicks Guru
KBlack25 said:
We did it in the Marbury deal...hence why we gave the Jazz (via Phoenix) our 2010 this year...I don't see how offering the 2014 pick when we have full rights to the 2013 is any different from what we did in 2004 with Phoenix.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TR1LL10N

TR1LL10N

Hannibal Lecter
KBlack25 said:
We did it in the Marbury deal...hence why we gave the Jazz (via Phoenix) our 2010 this year...I don't see how offering the 2014 pick when we have full rights to the 2013 is any different from what we did in 2004 with Phoenix.
Click to expand...

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.
 
K

KBlack25

Starter
hometheaterguy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
hometheaterguy

hometheaterguy

Knicks Guru
TR1LL10N said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
hometheaterguy

hometheaterguy

Knicks Guru
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...

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.
 
hometheaterguy

hometheaterguy

Knicks Guru
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...

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

KBlack25

Starter
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...


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.
 
nuckles2k2

nuckles2k2

Superstar
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.)
 
K

KBlack25

Starter
nuckles2k2 said:
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.)
Click to expand...

This is the correct reading. I'm almost 100% sure hometheaterguy is mistaken.
 
M

moneyg

Starter
hometheaterguy said:
From what I understand with the Starbury deal... Didn't the Knicks trade their current and a future; not 2 futures?
Click to expand...


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
 
hometheaterguy

hometheaterguy

Knicks Guru
KBlack25 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I

iSaYughh

Starter
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top