#1_War_Poet_ForLife
The Baker of Cakes
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2007
- Messages
- 9,176
- Likes
- 29
- Points
- 48
Manhattan > New Jersey
Manhattan > Brooklyn
Nets in 2010 > Knicks in 2010.



Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Manhattan > New Jersey
Manhattan > Brooklyn
Well, this seems familiar.We still have two years left which is enough time to unload some contracts. Randolph has been on a rampage this season (20/13) and has renewed interest from some teams including the Clippers, Bulls, and Grizzlies. The Knicks might find a way to unload him. In addition, Walsh can use Lee as bait to unload a bad contract before the deadline.
Nets in 2010 > Knicks in 2010.![]()
If LeBron doesn't sign with the Knicks because they are not in a position to win, then he's not going to sign with the Nets.Talent & Player wise.
Talent & Player wise.
If the Nets move Carter, who will be much easier to move than Randolph, they will have even more, while still having more talent than the Knicks.
Why wouldn't he go to the Nets, if he skips over the Knicks because of a chance to win? Devin Harris and Carter are better than anyone the Knicks have. Brook and Anderson have been great. Yi still has all the skills to be the perfect PF complement to Brook, Carter, LBJ, and Devin.
Well, Randolph is four years younger and has been more productive than Vince this season, so that isn't a given. But if they do trade Vince, they are only going to be worse.If the Nets move Carter, who will be much easier to move than Randolph, they will have even more, while still having more talent than the Knicks.
Why wouldn't he go to the Nets, if he skips over the Knicks because of a chance to win? Devin Harris and Carter are better than anyone the Knicks have. Brook and Anderson have been great. Yi still has all the skills to be the perfect PF complement to Brook, Carter, LBJ, and Devin.
Lopez has a lot more proving to do. Even after his rookie year.In 4 starts, Lopez is averaging 15 points and 8 rebounds. In the beginning of his rookie year.
There is not a team in the league that would take Randolph before Carter, and you know it.
I would take Lopez over Lee in a heartbeat. Nate is special, though.Lopez has a lot more proving to do. Even after his rookie year.
And the Clippers took Randolph before they did Carter.
Well, Randolph is four years younger and has been more productive than Vince this season, so that isn't a given. But if they do trade Vince, they are only going to be worse.
I thought you wanted the Nets to trade Carter? Even still, Harris and Carter might be better than anyone on the Knicks, but the fact remains the Nets aren't that good. And they likely won't be next year either, putting them in the same position as the Knicks. Yi might have great skills, but that doesn't change the fact he's been horrible all season. Ryan Anderson and Brook have been looking nice, but they don't seem like they have the type of future that will influence LeBron to sign with the team.
That's understandable. But the Knicks core: Lee/Robinson/Chandler/Gallo is quite solid, contrary to what some were saying a few months ago.I would take Lopez over Lee in a heartbeat. Nate is special, though.
Your cap space is a little deceiving, though. Since you only will have a few players on the roster so you'll need to sign guys like Lee/Nate, etc. and that will eat up some space.
Probably because Carter isn't, at the time, on the market (for that cheaply, anyway).Lopez has a lot more proving to do. Even after his rookie year.
And the Clippers took Randolph before they did Carter.
That's understandable. But the Knicks core: Lee/Robinson/Chandler/Gallo is quite solid, contrary to what some were saying a few months ago.
You're right, nothing is set in stone. I'm confident Walsh can somehow get rid of Curry or Jeffries. He's not close to being done dealing. If he manages to do this, then we can re-sign both comfortably and still be in a great position to sign LeBron.
Randolph has a higher PER and his team had the better record. Last time I checked (could have changed) Randolph has been top 3 in rebounding in the NBA, and in upper echelon in double-doubles.How has Randolph been more productive than Carter?
He's been more efficient as a scorer, turns the ball over less even though he plays with the ball in his hands more, is above average for a SG as a passer (Randolph is a below avg passer, even for a PF), both rebound extremely well for their positions
Carter has a higher PER. And a better record? NY is up by 1/2 a game after 12 games. Hardly relevant.Randolph has a higher PER and his team had the better record. Last time I checked (could have changed) Randolph has been top 3 in rebounding in the NBA, and in upper echelon in double-doubles.
I never said Gallo didn't have to prove himself. They both do. There's a difference in saying Lopez is a solid addition to your core and saying Lopez will be a key reason why LeBron will join the Nets.Wait. You're telling me Brook has a lot of proving to do, but then put Gallo in your core?
The Clippers stupidity makes Randolph easier to trade.Probably because Carter isn't, at the time, on the market (for that cheaply, anyway).
And it's the Clippers.
Arguing semantics is fun!!There is not a team in the league that would take Randolph before Carter, and you know it.
You're right about the PER, I definitely misread it for some reason.Carter has a higher PER. And a better record? NY is up by 1/2 a game after 12 games. Hardly relevant.
Carter has been better.
You're right about the PER, I definitely misread it for some reason.
The Knicks game doesn't count yesterday since Randolph wasn't playing. As for the previous 11, the Knicks have been better than the Nets.
Even so, Randolph and Carter's production has been similar, Randolph is 4 years younger, a big man, with a similar contract to VC. I wouldn't say he is "much easier" to move.