You know, those know-it-all cool kids who are never wrong yet never really turn out alright?
The fact is the Knicks had a plan and stuck to it. And they have two pieces to the puzzle in their prime years.
Which hasn’t prevented some revisionist history in the wake of Randolph’s and Memphis’ extraordinary postseason — as in, wouldn’t the Knicks be better if they hadn’t traded him?I'm sure the roster would look a little different. They probably trade Lee for a center and draft differently, but it's most certainly revisionist history. Randolph is a tremendous player and a very likable guy. I had the chance to talk to him a few times about Michigan State and Indiana high school ball.
Well, if they hadn’t, there’s no Amar’e Stoudemire because there would have been no cap room to sign him. And no Raymond Felton, also signed thanks to last off-season’s cap room, then utilized in the trade for Carmelo Anthony.
But, the theory goes, if the Knicks had Z-Bo, Wilson Chandler (who played 35 games as a rookie in Randolph’s full season), David Lee (who didn’t blossom until after Randolph left) and Danilo Gallinari (who came the next season) — plus Jamal Crawford, also traded for cap room the same day they dealt Randolph — would they be better today?
But the trade was made to build the NEW Knicks, not hold on to the old ones. Actually, there's an important distinction. They didn't trade Randolph, they traded his CONTRACT.