What if Rubio refused to workout for any team other than The Knicks could we get him?
- Thread starter New New York
- Start date
smokes
Huge Member
Griffin sure, he's a future D12 and can defend, he would be the paint presence we've lacked for many seasons.
Rubio? Not really, enough good looking PGs in the draft and plenty in the league, no need to give up a shitload of assets to get him.
metrocard
Legend
PG is the most important position in this system.
Rubio is more accomplished than Blake.
Blake has questions about:
- Go-to scoring mentality
- Turnover prone
- Advanced post moves
- Commitment to playing defense
- Defensive fundamentals
- Leadership skills
- Bad knees?
- Free throw shooting
- Lacks great range on jumper
smokes
Huge Member
Rubio has a few questions hanging over him also, his lack of a decent midrange/perimeter game, how his performance will hold up against an NBA defense etc etc.
PG is important, but my argument is that people want to give up Chandler and Lee/Nate, some of our main assets, to acquire a higher pick to draft Rubio, when there are 2-3 other good PGs in the draft who we don't have to give up these things to attain.
I know you don't rate Chandler much, but I still think he can be the next Iggy, he already has the speed, strength, athleticism to get there, just needs to work on his skills and the consistency of his shot.
Also, good PGs are not lacking in the NBA or the draft, big men with the potential of Griffin do not come along every day, so if we are going to give up things to move up in the draft, I'd only do it for something rare.
Stuck In the 8th Spot
I had assumed that we could possibly trade up to an earlier draft pick using Nate or Lee as an asset. Apparently that will not be possible. Howard Beck of the Times had a Q&A with fans and observed that as pending free agents neither Nate nor Lee could be traded on draft night. I believe this also means "before" draft night.
I took a look at the CBA, a document more complicated than the Internal Revenue Code. If I am reading it correctly, the Knicks cannot sign restricted free agents, such as Nate and Lee, until the commencement of the "Moratorium Period." That period will not start this year until early July and that period follows the draft. If we cannot sign them before July, 2009, we cannot do a sign and trade before July of 2009.
Without those assets, I do not see how we move up in the draft. Besides Chandler and Gallinari, neither of whom, I expect, we want to move, what do we have to offer?
We have to get lucky with the ping pong ball numbers or we will have to wait until the perods open up for signing restricted free agents and trading drafted rookies.
In other words, it is hardly worthwhile to talk about Griffin or Rubio. Neither of them are going to slip to the 8th spot.
I had assumed that we could possibly trade up to an earlier draft pick using Nate or Lee as an asset. Apparently that will not be possible. Howard Beck of the Times had a Q&A with fans and observed that as pending free agents neither Nate nor Lee could be traded on draft night. I believe this also means "before" draft night.
I took a look at the CBA, a document more complicated than the Internal Revenue Code. If I am reading it correctly, the Knicks cannot sign restricted free agents, such as Nate and Lee, until the commencement of the "Moratorium Period." That period will not start this year until early July and that period follows the draft. If we cannot sign them before July, 2009, we cannot do a sign and trade before July of 2009.
Without those assets, I do not see how we move up in the draft. Besides Chandler and Gallinari, neither of whom, I expect, we want to move, what do we have to offer?
We have to get lucky with the ping pong ball numbers or we will have to wait until the perods open up for signing restricted free agents and trading drafted rookies.
In other words, it is hardly worthwhile to talk about Griffin or Rubio. Neither of them are going to slip to the 8th spot.
True, but many times teams agree to draft the player that the other team wants, and then make the trade when it's allowed. For example, we could trade David Lee and our 1st rounder for say the Kings' first rounder and some player whose contract fits. We would draft the player that the Kings would want with the 8th pick, they would draft the player we want with their 1st pick. Then make the actual trade in July.
New New York
Quiet Storm
Possible, but that is more or less a handshake sort of deal until the trading period begins.
In order for that to work it would have to be a team that 1, wants David Lee or Nate really bad, and 2, a team who's GM Donnie Walsh has a good relationship with, because this sort of deal is putting a lot of trust in another GM to up hold their end. Imagine if we draft a player for another team with the intentions of trading him in two weeks and the deal gets rescinded on, then we are stuck with a player we likely did not want. Really atleast one trade like this happens on Draft night where teams draft for one another, but, that is only minutes after the pick is made, a lot can change between draft night and July 1st making this a very risky trade to even consider.
OGKnickfan
Enlightened
I think Chandler could be one of our future stars. I could see him becoming like an Igudola, in the next year or two. He might also be as good as he's ever going to get: only time will tell.
As such, I think we have to take into consideration his possible future rise, and think very carefully, before deciding to trade him.
As such, I think we have to take into consideration his possible future rise, and think very carefully, before deciding to trade him.
Maybe I make a different distinction of greatness
It's not a term I toss around. There are only a few great players in the NBA. I would say Kobe, Lebron, KG, Duncan, Wade, Howard, and maybe one or two others are great. The next level IMO would be guys like Paul, Williams, Pierce, Melo, Roy, Gasol, and several others. Very good, but not great. People like Magic are full of hyperbole. Great is top 50. Is Gasol top 50? Not yet, for sure.
I think people saying Griffin and Howard in the same sentence are nuts. Beasley had numbers just as amazing and was a beast on the boards. So wasn't Durant. Rebounding doesn't necessarily translate evenly. He'll be a good rebounder and he is tenacious but I simply have not seen the kind of offensive repertoire needed to tear up the NBA. I think a larger version of Boozer is pretty accurate. He's nothing like Howard.
It's not a term I toss around. There are only a few great players in the NBA. I would say Kobe, Lebron, KG, Duncan, Wade, Howard, and maybe one or two others are great. The next level IMO would be guys like Paul, Williams, Pierce, Melo, Roy, Gasol, and several others. Very good, but not great. People like Magic are full of hyperbole. Great is top 50. Is Gasol top 50? Not yet, for sure.
I think people saying Griffin and Howard in the same sentence are nuts. Beasley had numbers just as amazing and was a beast on the boards. So wasn't Durant. Rebounding doesn't necessarily translate evenly. He'll be a good rebounder and he is tenacious but I simply have not seen the kind of offensive repertoire needed to tear up the NBA. I think a larger version of Boozer is pretty accurate. He's nothing like Howard.
metrocard
Legend
Chandler isn't half as talented as Iggy, Iggy has handle, and is more a dimensional player...who's just a higher quality.
Chandler is what he is, I don't see much of a ceiling for him.
nah you can't say Chandler doesn't have the same ceiling as Iguodala has. 21 years old, 1st full season was pretty solid. I think we all saw room for improvement in shot selection, aggressiveness, ball handling..
I don't think anyone can say that a 21 year old has reached their ceiling in his 1st full year.
He isn't that far off from eventually putting up Marion/Iguodala type numbers.
I don't think anyone can say that a 21 year old has reached their ceiling in his 1st full year.
He isn't that far off from eventually putting up Marion/Iguodala type numbers.
metrocard
Legend
Age doesn't matter.
Chandler has no resume from high school or college that sames he has the same underlying abilities as Chandler.
Chandler was NEVER a lottery prospect.
Ever in his life.
He's always been a guy you expected to take in the last first round for his athleticism.
He's been a tweener most of his career, stuck in between positions...never found his role, plays with no position or identity, seems to get lost within the offense or shy out of dominating. Never displayed his dominance or truely is incapable of.
Are you deadass telling me you expect Chandler to carry a playoff team on his back like Iggy did most recently and get the game winning shot against an elite squad like Orlando?
Never.
Iggy is an elite SG, not in the class of Wade or Kobe, but the dude is a two way player that is very unselfish and has a lot of ball handling skills Chandler failed to even show potential of having.
I could say, and most knowledgeable scouts can say where Chandler's ceiling is at.
Wilson Chandler has as much ceiling as Bobby Simmons, without the jumpshot.
He's a 13 ppg scorer, nothing more, nothing less.
We must stop being delusional here and expecting Chandler to be the next Danny Granger.
smokes
Huge Member
You're right that his demeanor doesn't bode well for being an elite SG, but in his calm quiet way he can get the job done. You don't have to be flambouyant about your game to excel, Nate proves the exact opposite.
He gets to the rim with relative ease, not at will, but when he gets the go ahead he is there in seconds and has the strength and jumping ability to go over big bodies in the paint and still throw it down.
His jumpshot can be improved I'm sure, he's a second year guy playing in a system which encourages fast shots, not good shots. He's also playing alongside a lot of guys that demand the ball, and a PG that runs plays for Lee or a perimeter shot, when he's not a sharpshooter from behind the line.
His handles aren't the best, but he controls the ball well, he's not turning the ball over more than is acceptable, his main lack in this department is in terms of dribble moves, if the guy got a solid crossover or step-back he can create his own shot a lot better.
Maybe the next Iggy is going too far, but I still think he can be a 20-5-5 starting SG for a good team. He's still young and I don't see why you think he can't improve after only 1 season of playing proper basketball, I think the start of next season we'll see more of what he's got, hopefully he can train some aggression before then.