Typical Isiah trade. Go for a guy with a career losing record and then hope to rehabilitate him. Once again the talent level of the team goes up after an Isiah trade, but the question marks persist. All of us are still wondering if we will be able to win, despite the leap forward in talent. Why? Because Isiah never targets guys that are proven winners.

2004 Detroit Pistons Winner winner chicken dinner but before they became Pistons?

Ben Wallace Career loing record
Rip Hamilton Career losing record
Chaunsy Billips Career losing record.
Corlis Williamson Career losing record

3 starters and their 6th man of the year.
Rasheed only played 22 games for them that year
Prince never played for any other teams.

You know what- I tend not to subscribe to the he was a looser elsewhere logic.

To me, the fact that we can't win with these guys is less that they are career loosers, and more that they are cast off parts that have talent, but are flawed.

Consequently, we have 'talent', but too many flawed players to win.

Posted by djsunyc:

now that i think about it, jackie butler may be better than the pistons front court.

Seems if you look at your own sentence you will figure out what your problem is.

So you think we're winning a championship, then?

One ironic question for you. Why is it that when people aim to disprove a popular theory, they can find only find one obvious example where it held true and fail to mention the gargantuan amount of times it didn't? Furthermore, it was held true by a team that had the fiscal responsibility which enabled them to get players they specifically targetted as being good fits for their team.

I just don't get it how basic skills, like the rules of probability, are such a foreign concept. I also don't get how saying something to the effect of 'we got a talent upgrade, but the chemistry issues are a huge concern' is so offensive to the lovers.

[Edited by - Solace on Jul 02 2007 2:52 PM]

What about the lover logic in regards to underachieving and selfish stat whores whose teams always lose more than they win?

To me, career loser is more than just record, because you are correct sometimes it really isnt' the players fault. For me a career loser has a couple of the following faults

1.) Consistently part of losing teams
2.) Consistently lead teams to underacheivement
3.) Trouble with the law
4.) Unpopular with teammates
5.) Repeatedly targeted by coaches and teammates for a poor work ethic
6.) Run ins with more than one coach while also losing games
7.) Slow motors
8.) Consistent excuse makers

The funny thing is, you can have one or two of these guys on your team. You can also build a team that somehow gets it and magically starts to win. As a "hater" I will never say that's impossible because anything is possible. But chances are, if you build a team around guys that have these faults you will lose games and continue to point to injuries, chemistry issues etc as the reason why you don't win for 3 or 4 years.

Posted by COSSUCKS:

Yes I do eventually. Getting Malik Rose froma champion did not make us a champion. Getting Jackie Butler did not make the Spurs in to losers.
People that say xyz players is a loser because he is on a losing team are arguing Correlation equals Causation.

Sorry but that is incorrect and you're misinterpreting the point of what people are saying. I don't think anyone has claimed something in such terms.

The people who are being labeled as losers are considered losers for the following reasons:

Loser personality. Either excessively lazy in one or more aspects of the game or generally a negative influence on the team. This can be shown by the fact that the team often players better when said player is injured or after the player is traded. Stephon Marbury is the classic example of this. Zack's Blazers were awful last year. However, for the 13 games he was out of the lineup, they were above .500. There's some criteria for Zack fitting this mold, as well. Often a loser player is being labeled as such for recently committing a crime or crimes and possibly doing jail time or being a general headcase, causing a distraction for the team.

Zack is a loser, to go along with a team comprised of a lot of misfits, until proven otherwise. That doesn't mean he can't be a winner or the Knicks can't be winners, just that those factors are considerable and shouldn't be ignored. If you're using the Pistons as an example, you're going to be disappointed.

one note Coss - this isn't exactly "new" logic. don't remember if it came up when we got steph or if it was after a few of these moves started adding up. but it is not an invention of this last weekend to bash the ZR trade.

I don't really believe in calling players losers as every player could win in the right situation.

Randolph doesn't gurantee success though and comes with a lot of baggage. Thats the worry.

Ben Wallace & Rip Hamilton I wouldn't call career losers. Ben Wallace carried Orlando to the playoffs. Got Doc Rivers coach of the yr. That orlando team was very poor in talent but made playoffs(I think they did anway if not they we very close) with grit, hustle, defense, all led by Ben Wallace in the paint. They then traded Wallace for Grant Hill after Hill demanded he wanted to go to Orlando with Tmac. Rip Hamilton was on a poorly constructed Washington team built by Jordan. Jordan traded Rip because he was comming out of retirement and wanted to make playoffs right away so he traded for Jerry Stackhouse. Stackhouse was a better fit to play with Jordan than Rip was, so he thought. Wallace & Rip were both high character guys with tireless work ethics. Most importantly they both were cheap and brought minimal risk but also had potential to be more. Neither Wallace or Rip were traded because there teams wanted to get rid of them for locker room problems or overpaid or anything like that.

This post is just plain dumb, your defending the fact that this team is made up of selfish guards Nate, Crawford, Marbury, and stat whores.

Players like that don't produce wins, Marbury forced his way out of the playoffs and a great situation because he is ignorant and wanted to be the man and was jealous of garnett and where it has gotten him is 9 playoff games in 13 years. You spend your entire tenure as a knick proclaiming your greatness, and somehow convince everyone that you had a great season after you quit on your team, didn't join in the huddle and sulked, only to realize you needed to improve your image after the first months of the season.

Crawford came from the Bulls and as bad as we were we managed to win less games the past three seasons with him starting at the sg position than when we had an eisley/ward houston backcourt. Now why is it that someone 6'5 and long with all world skills can't play defense or make anyone but curry's job easier.

Nate celebrates his scoring/dunking during losses, tries the bounce the ball to himself and dunk it in the midst of a losing streak????

Curry refuses to rebound and help teammates, complains and does nothing when he is not being force fed.

Jerome James and Curry don't workout in the offseason and play their way into shape. You can't run a suicided without your teammates help, your a ****ing disgrace.


And they have the nerve to pronounce themselves a playoff teams if the injuries didn't hit even though they were 7 games under .500 in the most disgraceful east we have seen in years. While they complained about the home fans, curry no being an all-star, the league against them. Winners don't make countless excuses.

Thats your Knicks right now, minus Richardson, Lee, Collins, Balkman

The biggest factor is a long term contract.

Being a loser can get you cut in 10 seconds.

Having a long term contract gets you some time to get baggage.

And if The detroit argument to work you have to factor that loser Larry Brown guy. The right coach with the right players who can buy into a system (unselfish+Fill role=Chemistry) can make magic!

Go to the light!