it seems to me the only way this works would be to trade Horford (I like simple trades) plus maybe some lower value picks. Horford and Porzingis wouldn't be too bad together.
Who's in? Who thinks Carmelo for Horford makes us better? You have to think of this as the team for the balance of the Thomas tenure and that it is likely that Thomas finds greener pastures (no pun intended) meaning essentially one season.
Then it is Carmelo's team for one more season with a bunch of young players.
Who would give the Knicks more than this (and actually be able to match salaries without gutting the team)?
This is a horrible idea, and would make the team substantially worse.
Really, Al Horford is a more valuable player than Carmelo Anthony? I wonder if Cleveland or the Clippers would see it that way. I don't see it that way. I recognize that Carmelo is not the player he once was but Horford never was that kind of player. Horford does things that don't show up in the box score, I know. I like his passing and court movement, it all helps but Carmelo could average 20+ for us. It would change the whole way that teams have to defend us. Carmelo can defend and rebound sufficiently in the role he would play on the Celtics.
Also, keep in mind that Horford is not going to be all that valuable to us in a few years. We are going to have a young team of Smart, Fultz, Brown Zizic, etc. We are going to end up trading Horford as some point anyway I predict.
Any trade for Carmelo has to match salaries, that is the main reason you have to think about Horford. I don't think giving up Horford is that big a deal at all. My hesitation with Carmelo is his knees but we only need him really for one season to make a run with IT. Then IT is probably going to sign for big money elsewhere and we start over with a very good young core.
If your case is that Carmelo's knees are shot, OK, but I do not buy that Al Horford makes us better than Carmelo otherwise. This "Carmelo sucks" narrative is overblown.