DireJet38 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 I don't see anything so horrible on that rap sheet either. Rose colored glasses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 Bringing Zach Randolph in to help the cap situation -- in my opinion -- does more harm than good to the current situation of the Knicks. But, hey, that's just the way I see it. Watchable basketball to me, is obviously defined in a different manner than yourself, which is fine. How the heck is trading NOTHING for a guy who was one of the 5 players to avg 20 and 10 a bad move? You are making no sense. I'm sure they tried to get Garnett or Kobe but they just don't have the trace chips to land a guy like that. I'm no iasiah fan but he clearly improved the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 Rose colored glasses. Not really. I wanted the Jets to get Tank Johnson too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireJet38 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 I can give you a bigger rapsheet and more significant arrests of any player of your choice. Bottom Line is, you don't want this guy that averages 20-10. You want this kid, who hands out boxes of cookies for $4.49 Since when do Boy Scouts hand out cookies? This little thing you have going -- the whole boy scouts -- it ain't working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireJet38 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 How the heck is trading NOTHING for a guy who was one of the 5 players to avg 20 and 10 a bad move? You are making no sense. I'm sure they tried to get Garnett or Kobe but they just don't have the trace chips to land a guy like that. I'm no iasiah fan but he clearly improved the team. 20 and 10 means nothing when a player plays the game simply to achieve such numbers. I think that's what you are missing here. But, hey, it would be no fun if we agreed. We can revisit this in the winter. I'm anxious to see how it works out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 20 and 10 means nothing when a player plays the game simply to achieve such numbers. I think that's what you are missing here. But, hey, it would be no fun if we agreed. We can revisit this in the winter. I'm anxious to see how it works out. All players are playing for themselves. Thats just the way the NBA is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireJet38 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 All players are playing for themselves. Thats just the way the NBA is. That's a cop out. And, sorry, I'm just not willing to buy it anymore. Spurs are a real life example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 Rod and good GM doesn't belong in the same sentence. First of all, he fired Byron Scott midseason a year after going to the Finals because Kidd and company were bitching about his coaching style.... THE GUY TOOK YOU TO 2 STRAIGHT FINALS APPEARENCES!! Second, he traded Kenyon Martin who was at that time one of the most exciting players in the NBA to watch. For basically nothing in return, and since then we have always needed the same thing.... a PF! Byron Scott is a moron. The team won in spite of him. They traded Kenyon because the new owner wasn't willing to spend and has admitted that it was his fault. You don't think he deserves some credit for spinning Marbury into Kidd and getting Carter? I can't see complaining about this trade either. Just losing Francis is a plus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowJet35 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 Byron Scott is a moron. The team won in spite of him. They traded Kenyon because the new owner wasn't willing to spend and has admitted that it was his fault. You don't think he deserves some credit for spinning Marbury into Kidd and getting Carter? I can't see complaining about this trade either. Just losing Francis is a plus. The Kidd and Carter moves was good but that only got us so far, the Kenyon move alone squanders all of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 That's a cop out. And, sorry, I'm just not willing to buy it anymore. Spurs are a real life example. You know what the Spurs are an example of? Getting REALLY lucky in the lottery after taking games. Thats about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireJet38 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 You know what the Spurs are an example of? Getting REALLY lucky in the lottery after taking games. Thats about it. Doesn't change the fact that they are a cohesive team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 Doesn't change the fact that they are a cohesive team. That and a metro card will get you on the subway. In the NBA you win with superstars period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 This is a high risk, high reward trade by the Knicks... and I think it was a good one considering the situation they are in... they dont want to clean house and gut the team... so you need to bring in some high risk players... Im happy with the way everything from the Bulls-Knicks trade worked out... Knicks got: - Curry Bulls got: - Tyrus Thomas - Noah If anything it leaves the Bulls with enough pieces to trade for a superstar... or a LOT of young talent... They also picked up a HUGE center in the 2nd round who is actually decent... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowJet35 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 This is a high risk, high reward trade by the Knicks... and I think it was a good one considering the situation they are in... they dont want to clean house and gut the team... so you need to bring in some high risk players... Im happy with the way everything from the Bulls-Knicks trade worked out... Knicks got: - Curry Bulls got: - Tyrus Thomas - Noah If anything it leaves the Bulls with enough pieces to trade for a superstar... or a LOT of young talent... They also picked up a HUGE center in the 2nd round who is actually decent... Aaron Gray was a monster at PITT and in the Big East Conference, IMO he was a top 4 post up player in the draft next to Brandan Wright and Kyle Visser and Al Horford. The Bulls needed a post up presence and they got it, question is, how is Scott Skiles gonna get him onto the floor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn306 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 That and a metro card will get you on the subway. In the NBA you win with superstars period. Psst...Hey Mike. Jordan retired about 9 years ago. IF you havent' noticed the Spurs and the Pistons two very cohesive teams who play the game the way it was meant to be played have won the last couple of titles. The days of the superstar and his wingman. (i.e Jordan and Scottie, Shaq and Kobe are gone) Teams like the Spurs and the Pistons are the future. Cohesive units that play together on both sides of the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn306 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 This is a high risk, high reward trade by the Knicks... and I think it was a good one considering the situation they are in... they dont want to clean house and gut the team... so you need to bring in some high risk players... Im happy with the way everything from the Bulls-Knicks trade worked out... Knicks got: - Curry Bulls got: - Tyrus Thomas - Noah If anything it leaves the Bulls with enough pieces to trade for a superstar... or a LOT of young talent... They also picked up a HUGE center in the 2nd round who is actually decent... The Knicks can't clean out. Too many problem players making too much money. The Randolph trade is another in a long line of deals where the Knicks are taking on someone else's problem. Could it work out. Yeah it could. Will it ? Knicks history shows it won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 Psst...Hey Mike. Jordan retired about 9 years ago. IF you havent' noticed the Spurs and the Pistons two very cohesive teams who play the game the way it was meant to be played have won the last couple of titles. The days of the superstar and his wingman. (i.e Jordan and Scottie, Shaq and Kobe are gone) Teams like the Spurs and the Pistons are the future. Cohesive units that play together on both sides of the ball. The Knicks can't clean out. Too many problem players making too much money. The Randolph trade is another in a long line of deals where the Knicks are taking on someone else's problem. Could it work out. Yeah it could. Will it ? Knicks history shows it won't. Good posts The Heat though did it with Shaq-Wade... Defense wins championships... its the truth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireJet38 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 Psst...Hey Mike. Jordan retired about 9 years ago. IF you havent' noticed the Spurs and the Pistons two very cohesive teams who play the game the way it was meant to be played have won the last couple of titles. The days of the superstar and his wingman. (i.e Jordan and Scottie, Shaq and Kobe are gone) Teams like the Spurs and the Pistons are the future. Cohesive units that play together on both sides of the ball. Thank you. But it won't be as enjoyable to watch, right, Mike? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 Could the Knicks stack themselves anymore at PF and SF? I love the trade but what is the use of Chandler? I don't like the draft pick with the aquistion of Randolph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 Psst...Hey Mike. Jordan retired about 9 years ago. IF you havent' noticed the Spurs and the Pistons two very cohesive teams who play the game the way it was meant to be played have won the last couple of titles. The days of the superstar and his wingman. (i.e Jordan and Scottie, Shaq and Kobe are gone) Teams like the Spurs and the Pistons are the future. Cohesive units that play together on both sides of the ball. The spurs have Tim Duncan. Thats the only reason they have won titles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 Could the Knicks stack themselves anymore at PF and SF? I love the trade but what is the use of Chandler? I don't like the draft pick with the aquistion of Randolph. Chandler is a long term project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 Chandler is a long term project. Don't care, stupid selection to me, but we'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 Don't care, stupid selection to me, but we'll see. I'm not trying to defend thomas because i can't stand him but at 23 you're probably not gonna get an impact guy, might as well take a player with upside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireJet38 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 I'm not trying to defend thomas because i can't stand him but at 23 you're probably not gonna get an impact guy, might as well take a player with upside. David Lee isn't an impact guy? We got him at 30. I was eying Dudley. We were one pick too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 David Lee isn't an impact guy? We got him at 30. I was eying Dudley. We were one pick too late. Lee is a good 6th man on a good team. He's not an impact player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsMan57 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 I think Isiah still has a move up his sleeve, Curry and Randolph are not great compliments, we are 2 players over the roster limit and we have a bunch of SF/PFs. Wouldnt be surprised if Isiah makes a run at Kobe, this time involving Curry in offers.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 I think Isiah still has a move up his sleeve, Curry and Randolph are not great compliments, we are 2 players over the roster limit and we have a bunch of SF/PFs. Wouldnt be surprised if Isiah makes a run at Kobe, this time involving Curry in offers.... I doubt they have enough to get him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 I'm just glad Francis is off the team, thats my favorite part of yesterday. I wanted to cry I was so happy. Have hated that move since the day he got here. There is no room for Marbury & Francis and I'd rather have Marbury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireJet38 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 Lee is a good 6th man on a good team. He's not an impact player. Ridiculous statement. He averaged a double-double. Shot 80% from the line. Shot 60% from the field. Did all the little things that actually brought people into the Garden. He -- as of right now -- is the main marketing device that the Knicks are using. But, no, he's not an impact player or anything. Your broad generalizations, spoken as gospel, are becoming more outlandish by the post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 David Lee is the start to building a playoff or dare I say it, championship calibear team. He is the type of player who helps franchises wn championships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 Ridiculous statement. He averaged a double-double. Shot 80% from the line. Shot 60% from the field. Did all the little things that actually brought people into the Garden. He -- as of right now -- is the main marketing device that the Knicks are using. But, no, he's not an impact player or anything. Your broad generalizations, spoken as gospel, are becoming more outlandish by the post. Man knicks fans REALLY overrate lee. He can't shoot from more than 5 feet and he can't defend. The things he's very good at is on the glass, 2nd chance points and dunking. He's not a star. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireJet38 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 Man knicks fans REALLY overrate lee. He can't shoot from more than 5 feet and he can't defend. The things he's very good at is on the glass, 2nd chance points and dunking. You originally said he wasn't an impact player. I was just debunking that slight of the mind on your part. I don't think he's anything more than what he is, which is a soulful, balls to the wall, high character, unselfish, fundamentally sound player. Clearly, he makes an impact by filling that role. You NEED players like that on a TEAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 You originally said he wasn't an impact player. I was just debunking that slight of the mind on your part. I don't think he's anything more than what he is, which is a soulful, balls to the wall, high character, unselfish, fundamentally sound player. Clearly, he makes an impact. He's what I said. A very good 6th man. By impact player I mean a guy who makes the all star team every year and can take over games. Thats not Lee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireJet38 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 He's what I said. A very good 6th man. By impact player I mean a guy who makes the all star team every year and can take over games. Thats not Lee. Of course that's not Lee. But what he does -- in my opinion -- is just as valuable, or more, than what Starbury does. I think he's a starter, and he proved that last year before getting injured. We clearly don't see eye to eye when it comes to the definition of an 'impact' player. If that's the case, I don't think the Knicks have ONE impact player on their roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 Of course that's not Lee. But what he does -- in my opinion -- is just as valuable, or more, than what Starbury does. I think he's a starter, and he proved that last year before getting injured. We clearly don't see eye to eye when it comes to the definition of an 'impact' player. If that's the case, I don't think the Knicks have ONE impact player on their roster. I'd much rather have Lee than Marbury but I think Marbury is pretty worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.