|
|
|
Just to clarify the specifics of the deal, the Nuggets have the option to swap the 2010 second round pick with the Clippers as per the Marcus Camby deal, meaning the Knicks would get the Clippers pick.
I, for one, was always split on Renaldo Balkman as a player. It’s hard not to root for one of the few
guys that hustled on this team. And yes, he dunked everything. In fact, I would have morning sit downs with friends at work who were proud South Carolina Gamecock alumns who would pick him for their fantasy teams.
And be in last place.
Let’s be realistic here, he was an awful draft pick. I hate the 20/20 hindsight people who say “awe man we could have drafted ______ but our GM was an idiot.” I still get crazy when people say we passed on Karl Malone for Kenny Walker.
The draft is a crapshoot, we know this, but I think I’d rather have Rajon Rondo or Jordan Farmar in the backcourt at this point. Moreover, why on earth didn’t Isiah try and trade up to the mid-teens?
Oh well, that’s history now that Balkman is in Denver.
The point is moot, the idea here is that the guy who drafted Balkman and annointed him the fan’s new favorite, is also the guy who stunted his growth by drafting another small forward a year later. Frankly, I’m not sure any of Isiah Thomas’ bizarre bench decisions were as head scratching as benching Balkman early last year.
In fairness, Balkman is not a power forward, he’s an energy player who hurts a team at the 3 because he can’t shoot and hurts at team at the 4 because at barely over 200lbs, he can’t guard the post. Sure, he made up for it with dunks, lose balls, tips and steals, but that only equals some 10-15 minutes per game, max. A player with those skills has a place on the court in lopsided games and shootouts, which was every Knick game this year, but in tight games, it’s hard to justify them being on the court.
More minutes would have allowed for Balkman’s weaknesses to be exposed, weaknesses that Wilson Chandler and Danilo Gallinari simply don’t have.
From a trade standpoint, ignore the money aspect. Yes, the Knicks save $2 million dollars, but this is about roster flexibility. There are more moves coming, so let’s be patient here.
Balkman was not a difference maker, if you understand the game you know that Gallinari and Chandler have higher ceilings and deserve to play more. At the end of the day, if this sets up another deal it’s the right move.
Rating: B
that’s what i’m sayin’! thank you, tommy! simply perfect.
When a team is trying to rebuild, I think the Nets have started doing a great job…they traded their older players for younger players who make less money…they will stink for the next 3 years or so, but they are stockpiling cap space, young players and as they are bad, they will add very talented draft picks…forget a late second round pick, how many of them have ended up being anything at all in this league? Very very few. Essentially, the Knicks made the decision to dump a younger player, Balkman instead of an older one, like Jeffries, q-Rich, Marbury or Malik…this is just horrible…Balkman is energetic, he plays hard and does have some upside…this trade upset me, not because I think Balkman will be anything (i doubt he is more than a 9th or 10th man), but that the Knicks are clearly not rebuilding the “right way”. Now, Donnie Walsh is obviously much smarter than me, but if this is only a move to get to 15 players, then choosing to cut Balkman instead of one of the veterans is cowardly and shows this team is not focused in the right direction.
The Knicks have a 1st round draft pick next year, none in 2010 and hopefully we will add a free agent then, so the 1st round picks won’t be as important. Therefore, the Knicks should look to be as bad as possible this year because we NEED a really high pick this year. Cutting one of the veterans instead of Balkman would show that the team is looking for this.
I really worry that the team is so concerned about ticket sales that they are going to try and make the playoffs this year. That would be incredibly foolish. We need to add one more good piece before we start improving, so there is more than just Galinari and Chandler to build around. Pending any follow ups, I think this is a real loser deal.
Arputter – you need to chill, man.
Team management is a chess game – and particularly so when rebuilding. You must think a few moves ahead because like chess (or rubiks cube) you have to move things around before it all comes together. It’s rare (see Celtics ‘07-08) when a few short moves make a major impact.
Walsh needs to move the pieces around to put the team in a position and if that means “sacrificing” a pawn (i.e. a dime a dozen bench player) like Balkman then let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and see where this goes.
And when you accept that Balkman was not a first round talent then it a whole lot easier to be patient and see where this goes.
I agree with you, but might rate the trade above a B. In business we’d term Renaldo Balkman a sunk cost, which are costs that have been incurred and which cannot be recovered to any significant degree.
Donnie is simply doing a little house-cleaning with this move and setting the stage for the next moves that need to be made. Rome was not built in a day, and so to the Knicks fans must be patient and believe. Walsh is a consummate pro with a history of success. We all need to stop second-guessing and just be happy that Isiah is gone and the bleeding wound is being attended to by one of the best doctors in the game.
Thanks,
Matt
30 years and counting for a championship
Yeah, as much as I liked Balkman’s hustle, this had to be done. Arputter, you make an excellent point, and I hope we see some of those slagging older players leaving on a jet plane. I trust that this is Walsh’s intention. He already as much as stated that Marbury won’t be in a Knicks uniform.