PDA

View Full Version : Van Horn traded?



zxc
02-15-2004, 03:40 PM
To bucks? Says this on the bottom line of ESPNews. Anyone hear more on this can't find much info. Says it is a 3 team deal.

Aw Heck
02-15-2004, 03:43 PM
Knicks get:
Tim Thomas
Nazr Mohammed

Bucks get:
Keith Van Horn

Hawks get:
Michael Doleac
Joel Pryzbilla
[hr]

I'm not sure why the Bucks feel they need Van Horn. I know they were disappointed with Thomas, but why have both Van Horn and Kukoc when they're both similar?

Knicks improve themselves I guess, though I'm not sure. It could turn out to be a lateral move.

Hawks, well....I guess if the Pacers want Jason Terry cheap they should look to get him now.

Overall, it's a meaningless deal IMO.

Hicks
02-15-2004, 03:48 PM
Knicks are beginning to disturb me.

Suaveness
02-15-2004, 03:49 PM
Knicks are beginning to disturb me.

This is real scary...marbury and thomas now....really worries me...

zxc
02-15-2004, 03:50 PM
Knicks are beginning to disturb me.

I dunno, think that trade actually makes them better? Tim Thomas isn't really better than Van Horn in any area. Mohammad.. not that impressive but decent backup C. Injury concern though.

And their salary situation is pretty insane. Only way they would really worry me is next season if Wallace actually goes there for the MLE. Probably have 100 mill+ payroll then =\

Hicks
02-15-2004, 04:07 PM
I'd rather have Van Horn than Thomas. Especially since Van Horn's contract is much shorter.

They're equal in length, with Thomas' being worth a shade less according to Knicks fans.

zxc
02-15-2004, 04:09 PM
Mohammad makes 5 mill a year too for as long as Thomas though so they take on a bit more salary here even if Thomas makes a tad less than Van Horn.

Hicks
02-15-2004, 04:10 PM
Yep, they're right too:

http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/milwaukee.htm

http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/new_york.htm

Thomas:

11.8
12.9
14.0

Van Horn:

13.2
14.5
15.7

Hicks
02-15-2004, 04:10 PM
Mohammad makes 5 mill a year too for as long as Thomas though so they take on a bit more salary here even if Thomas makes a tad less than Van Horn.

They dropped Doleac, too.

Unclebuck
02-15-2004, 04:10 PM
Kukoc and Van Horn are not that similar

Kukoc is a great passer in fact that is his very best skill.

Van Horn is not a good passer at all.

Kukoc is no more like Van Horn than Croshere is and yet they get compared also.

The Knicks are trying to get more athletic

Hicks
02-15-2004, 04:11 PM
Mohammad makes 5 mill a year too for as long as Thomas though so they take on a bit more salary here even if Thomas makes a tad less than Van Horn.

They dropped Doleac, too.

Ah, but Nazr does make more I see. Hmm. Wonder how that worked under the CBA then.

Nazr's is like 5mil a year, and Doleac's is 1.5mil. Hmm.

zxc
02-15-2004, 04:15 PM
Well Atlanta is below the cap probably so perhaps that equates into things.

Cactus Jax
02-15-2004, 05:08 PM
As much as this sounds weird, but I think the Knicks will really miss Doleac later on. The guy can shoot the ball, and is unselfish.

Thomas is very overrated and had a chance to be a decent-good player, but didn't prove that. The Knicks did want to be a better defensive team though and they did that. Hawks clear more cap-space, and the Bucks get a big guy who can score and rebound although his defense is questionable, which may end up hurting the Bucks. Solid trade all-around.

Cactus Jax
02-15-2004, 05:17 PM
Of course NOW the Pacers are done with the Hawks. Doleac is going to be the Hawks starting center... lol. Their line-up still isn't bad though.

Terry
Jackson
Boris
Rasheed
Doleac

They can still compete but will probably be very different. I don't think Terry will be traded mainly for the fact that it seems they aren't getting very good offers. I think pretty much everyone else is a free-agent besides Boris who they really like. Too bad the Pacers don't really have anything the Hawks would want, within reason, besides Harrington; just imagine Mercer's contract still on the team.

MSA2CF
02-15-2004, 05:26 PM
What's with New York?

Can't their pro teams raise their players and draft well?

They always gotta go get someone else's players. :mad:

Although, I think neither the Yankees nor the Knicks have improved because of their trades today.

Cactus Jax
02-15-2004, 05:44 PM
Mohammad makes 5 mill a year too for as long as Thomas though so they take on a bit more salary here even if Thomas makes a tad less than Van Horn.

They dropped Doleac, too.

Ah, but Nazr does make more I see. Hmm. Wonder how that worked under the CBA then.

Nazr's is like 5mil a year, and Doleac's is 1.5mil. Hmm.

Yeah this trade can't work that way I would think. The Knicks are taking a lot more salary back than they give up, and they're over the cap so I would think the deal can't be done. I need an explanation on that though if it can be done. I know Atlanta doesn't have to take back equal salary, but I believe the Knicks have to. Hmm.. this should get interesting.

Peck
02-15-2004, 05:52 PM
People are looking to much at Thomas & Van Horn on this, well I guess they are the princaples but still. The addition of Nazr Mohammed is, to me the main thing Isiah did here.

Nazr hasn't yet proved he is capable of being a night in & night out starter but he has already proven to be one of the best backup centers in the N.B.A.

This now allows Motumbo to play less min. during the regular season & now will not force Kurt Thomas to play center min. so much.

Tim Thomas is a decent player. IMO, trading him & Van Horn is kind of a wash. BTW, didn't these two already get traded for each other once when Thomas was just a draft pick?

My first reaction to this was to think the N.B.A. should step in & stop the move & not allow Atlanta to make anymore moves because they are destoying their franchise for the HOPE of salary cap. space (like anybody is going to sign there) but upon further review I actually don't think they came away from this as bad as I first thought.

Niether Doleac nor Pryzbilla are as good as Nazr on their own. However this now gives Atlanta a starter & a backup center instead of just one center who really was a good backup.

Still not a good trade, but not the salary cap. dump I first thought it was.

sixthman
02-15-2004, 06:44 PM
Trade works on realgm trade checker ID# 1508064

Using Hoopshype's numbers, the Knicks trade 14.8 million in salary and get back 16.8 million. That's within the 115 percent required range. They could have taken back a little over 17 million.

ABADays
02-15-2004, 06:49 PM
What's with New York?

Can't their pro teams raise their players and draft well?

They always gotta go get someone else's players. :mad:

Although, I think neither the Yankees nor the Knicks have improved because of their trades today.

They do it because they can. Their LOCAL broadcast/advertising revenue dwarfs everyone else in sports. If they have to play a luxury tax then they just pay it.

DisplacedKnick
02-15-2004, 07:27 PM
Bad trade IMO.

Doleac for Mohammed's roughly a lateral deal IMO. Mohammed's a better defender while Doleac's better on offense - the problem is Mohammed's making 3X the money - and Doleac works EXTREMELY WELL with Marbury on the pick-and-roll.

But that's not the real problem here. The real problem is the KVH-for-Thomas part of the equation. Thomas is one of the great NBA underachievers. Now maybe Zeke and Lenny can turn him into the player he was supposed to be in which case I'll change my tune. Guess what - he's in his 7th year in the league. He's established what he is - particularly last year when he was handed the team after Robinson was traded.

So what'd we gain from this? We lost scoring. We lost rebounding in a big way. I could live with that if we got someone like James Posey who could defend but Thomas just may be a worse defender than KVH. KVH isn't gonna make anyone forget Shaq but at least he has some post moves. TT doesn't.

Bad deal IMO though I guess the miracle could happen and TT turns into the 2nd coming of KG like he was supposed to be.

wintermute
02-16-2004, 05:10 AM
on realgm, buck fans are happy about the trade. their take is that kvh is a little better in most departments and is much better in rebounding (and equally bad defensively). timmy may be athletic but he has never done much with it.

i guess milwaukee has just finally given up on tim thomas and his potential.

SycamoreKen
02-16-2004, 11:38 AM
What's with New York?

Although, I think neither the Yankees nor the Knicks have improved because of their trades today.

The Yankees went from no third baseman to having the best player in baseball there now. The hole at second should not be a problem, not with the improvement on the other side.

Roy Munson
02-16-2004, 01:11 PM
Kukoc and Van Horn are not that similar

Kukoc is a great passer in fact that is his very best skill.

Van Horn is not a good passer at all.

Kukoc is no more like Van Horn than Croshere is and yet they get compared also.

The Knicks are trying to get more athletic

OK, at the risk of being called "politically incorrect" (not that I mind being called that), I'm going to bring up a pattern that I'm sure I'm not the first to observe.

I think I. Thomas has a problem with white people. I see his phrase "more athletic" as being code for "blacker".

Look at what he did to Croshere.

Look at his 20-year "cold" relationship with Larry Bird.

You KNOW it kills him to watch Carlisle's success.

Last month he traded away Lampe in the Marbury deal. (insignificant in itself).

Now he dumps 2 white players for 2 "more athletic" players.

He has now gotten rid of all three of the Knicks "less athletic" players in his first month.

(They may or may NOT be more athletic, but being more athletic isn't a guarantee of winning basketball. Who'd you rather have? Freddie Jones or Jerry West? Jones is a lot more athletic than Jerry West...).

I recall IT's incident last year about this time when he was stopped on the freeway (can't remember what the complaint was), but he insinuated that he had been the victim of some kind of racism.

Yes, I know that you're not supposed to say these kinds of things, but I believe it's true.

Kegboy
02-16-2004, 03:49 PM
I think I. Thomas has a problem with white people.

Yep, and he never started Zan Tabak, Jeff Foster, and Brad Miller, either. Or hired Ron Rothstein, Brendan Malone (twice), or Jim Stack (twice.) :rolleyes:

Anthem
02-16-2004, 05:28 PM
I think I. Thomas has a problem with white people. I see his phrase "more athletic" as being code for "blacker".

Look at what he did to Croshere.

Sorry, I missed it. What did Thomas do to Croshere? If there's anything this year has shown, it's that Croshere should have played LESS than he did under Thomas.

If we had Brad instead of Pollard, Croshere would be averaging a DNP-CD. That's less than Thomas gave him.

This stuff is pure and utter crap, Roy. The world needs less of this.

Roy Munson
02-16-2004, 06:09 PM
This stuff is pure and utter crap, Roy. The world needs less of this.

Well, I disagree. Whether it's white against black, or back against white, I think it is harmful to pretend racism doesn't exist.

Thomas appears to be washing his roster of all white players. Is it wrong to notice?

DisplacedKnick
02-16-2004, 06:23 PM
Sorry, I missed it. What did Thomas do to Croshere? If there's anything this year has shown, it's that Croshere should have played LESS than he did under Thomas.


Yeah, it's hard to argue with how Zeke used AC - and I was far from an Isiah Thomas coaching fan.

Croshere started the 2000-01 season off as a starter. Zeke stuck with him for about 20 games. IIRC, at the end of those 20 games he was shooting about 36%, was a sieve on defense and had more TO's than assists.

That was enough of a shot for him IMO, particularly when Jalen came back (who should have been playing at SF NOT PG). And after that he didn't exactly bury him - he was still in the rotation and still had chances. But Isiah didn't have a lot of confidence in him - after his start, how could he?

Natston
02-16-2004, 06:55 PM
I think I. Thomas has a problem with white people. I see his phrase "more athletic" as being code for "blacker".

Look at what he did to Croshere.

Sorry, I missed it. What did Thomas do to Croshere? If there's anything this year has shown, it's that Croshere should have played LESS than he did under Thomas.

If we had Brad instead of Pollard, Croshere would be averaging a DNP-CD. That's less than Thomas gave him.

This stuff is pure and utter crap, Roy. The world needs less of this.

Looks like I need to bump my Rectification thread... :blush:

wintermute
02-17-2004, 11:50 AM
I think I. Thomas has a problem with white people. I see his phrase "more athletic" as being code for "blacker".


or maybe, it just goes to show that black people tend to be better at bball than white people, a statement few people would argue with, i think.

or do you really think it's necessary to have a token white guy on nba teams?

Natston
02-17-2004, 12:05 PM
Well, I disagree. Whether it's white against black, or back against white, I think it is harmful to pretend racism doesn't exist.

It's very harmful, and there is no denying it from me. However I think it is more harmful to try make something into a race issue when it's not...