As for Harrington, Mobley and Thomas the one positive about all three players is they have shown the ability to shoot the 3 better than anyone currently on the Knicks, all three have had multiple better than 40% from the 3pt line seasons. That could really help since D’Antoni’s offense creates so many open looks from downtown. Also I think Mobley is a solid defender and can see a Raja Bell kind of role. Harrington is also a good defender and Thomas is no worse than Randolph. So our defense should improve, and our shooting should improve. My big worry is that Lee is the the only player on the whole roster who is even average at rebounding from the 4 or 5. So I see us getting killed on the glass.

Ted, if NY was 100% sure that Crawford would opt out, I’m sure they would have been happy to just let him go. he was showing bad signs in recent games of entirely disappearing for long stretches, though, many more of those and I’m not sure GS would have still been interested.

If they were 100% sure he would opt out (and presumably didn’t want to resign him) then I think trading him for a 2 season deal was the right thing to do. I would have traded him for an expiring contract and even a late 1st rounder or 2nd rounder over Harrington, personally, only because you take a shot at getting a long-term piece. Harrington should be an adequate rotation player for the next 2 seasons, so I’m not too upset about the deal… just think they could have done better.

Considering that Crawford might not have opted out I can definitely understand why you trade him in a lateral deal, especially one that works well with the Randolph deal. I just stlll think an expiring contract and draft pick would have been a better deal. Nothing against Harrington, who I look forward to rooting for for the next 2 seasons.

I’m not against Walsh’s philosophy of winning now while keeping an eye on winning big later, I just thought Crawford was one of his most tradable assets (and best players) and would have loved to see him dealt this past offseason when he was coming off a 20 ppg season. Basically I’m nitpicking.

Despite his height, he is better defensively than Crawford at a younger age. I just think a Duhon/Mobley backcourt will not provide enough offense. Is there any reason that Nate can’t play 40 minutes a game the way Craw did last year?

Don’t know if someone mentioned this already, but Newsday is reporting that there is a standing offer to Miami of Marbury for Marion. So far, Miami has not bitten on the offer. I’m not sure why Miami wouldn’t go for that deal. They get to test drive Marbury for the rest of the season and get more cap relief at the end of the season than Marion would provide.

no, it’s the same cap relief, both of their salaries are expiring. just because Marbury makes more than Marion doesn’t change Miami’s other salary obligations for next year.

ess-dog, I don’t see how Nate can guard opposing 2 guards as a starter, he seems like an ideal sixth man gunner to me.

I agree with the thinking here, especially in the wake of yesterday’s purging. But with hindsight, it would be a bitter pill to swallow. People on this site seem more willing to trade Lee since last summer, but his value was higher then. Last June his agent killed a deal to Memphis that would have ultimately sent O.J. Mayo to the Knicks. It would be too bad if a few months later all he returned in a trade was Eddy Curry’s empty locker…

“They also get the best player in the deal.”
honestly not sure if you mean Lee or Marbury, but neither of those guys is anywhere near Marion.

Given his defense I think Marion probably would be the best player in that deal; however, he’s been a low-usage/low-efficiency scorer in Miami this season which is exactly what he was in Miami last season. In fact, on his career his TS% is probably 70 percentage points lower w/o D’Antoni.
Given their ages I think Lee is definitely “anywhere near him.” I don’t think I’d be for that deal, because no one else in the league is giving a Lee caliber player for Marion OR taking back Blount with him, let alone both. It’s pretty similar to giving up Crawford for Harrington when there’s no evidence anything close was on the table.
(Random rant… I have no idea what other offers they had, but I don’t think I heard a single rumor that any team besides the Knicks was interested in Al Harrington–Harrington for Gerald Wallace was mentioned but evaporated pretty quickly. Maybe a contender offered garbage plus a late 1st so the Knicks had to offer Crawford or give up a pick. Maybe they just wanted to move Crawford rather than face the lose him for nothing/ be stuck with him forever conundrum. That’s definitely part of it, actually, I just think they could have gotten a better long-term deal.)

So, playoffs this year? Probably not?

Honestly, without another move I think we may be one of the worst teams in the East (if not the THE worst). Even though I love the moves yesterday from a long term perspective, I think Harrington is a downgrade from Randolph and Mobley is a downgrade from Crawford. I’m not sure what Thomas brings, but it’s not much. The best case scenario is that these new players do better in D’Antoni’s system and it’s close to neutral. Given that we were only 6-6 because of the soft schedule, I can easily see us going on quite a negative run given the tougher opponents, new mix of players to try to fit in, and IMHO downgrade of talent.

The East is surprisingly deep with decent teams, and I agree that the Knicks could be one of the worst or THE worst (could have been one of the worst regardless of the trades, as well) although Washington’s making it very hard to compete and Larry Brown doesn’t seem to have re-found what he lost in NY thus far.

I don’t know that Harrington is a downgrade compared to Randolph (I’m very tempted to call him an upgrade), but Crawford should be missed (because Mobley looks like he’s completely done). By directly replacing Crawford and Randolph with equal or better players (Robinson and Lee) and replacing Robinson and Lee with 3 potentially capable rotation players (Harrinton, Thomas, Mobley) plus the return of Jeffries, I don’t know that the Knicks’ rotation is necessarily worse off than it would have been. Of course, I’m sure Harrington gets 40 mpg, and whether he shoots the way he did last season (pretty well) or on his career (poorly) may determine the Knicks’ success to a large degree.

Now that they’ve moved the only active players they needed to, I’m not sure I mind the Knicks openly tanking, anyway. On the other hand, maybe they can get Curry and Jeffries is action and work the Randolph magic.

“They also get the best player in the deal.”
honestly not sure if you mean Lee or Marbury, but neither of those guys is anywhere near Marion.

True, but Miami seems to value Lee more than they value Marion. He’s on the downside, while Lee is presumably on he upside (though his stats this year show a decline). Marion is not is Miami’s long term plans (nor should he be in ours), and a guy like Lee is. Therefore, Miami gets the best player in the deal, even if he’s not really the best player, career wise.

The deal I proposed is probably a bit dreamy, but the biggest reason that the two teams won’t make a deal is because they are conference rivals, not because of the players being exchanged.