|
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
|
Eddy Curry is shooting jumpers
Over the past couple of weeks, the Knick players have reunited up at the MSG Training Center for some workouts. Nate Robinson has been there pretty much all summer -- he's gone back to his home in Washington twice and also took a family vacation to Puerto Rico with Eddy Curry's tribe -- and seems determined to show his critics (which, I think you guys know by now, include me) that he is taking his career more serious now.
Zach Randolph apparently hasn't included himself in these runs. In fact, Z-Bo hasn't made his way to New York since he was introduced to the media at his press conference after the draft. Well, we were expecting to hook up with him a few weeks ago at a Knicks camp in Manhattan, but he, you see, he..um..his flight, you know, he either missed it or it was cancelled or something.
Wonderful start.
But I'm hearing Curry has showed off a new dimension to his game: an outside J. Nate says that Eddy is doing so comfortably within a scrimmage. A little catch-and-shoot. A pop-out. A little Patrick Ewing-style.
We know Eddy has a nice touch. He's not the quickest guy, but he moves well for a big man. Despite his three-point bomb that beat Milwaukee late in the season (Still waiting for someone to tell me why the Bucks had players defending the empty paint on that play), clearly this is a part of his game Curry needed to develop and he said he would. Of course I haven't been present to see it, so I'm just relaying what I've heard. But it's encouraging news. For Curry and Randolph to work, Eddy needs to be able to go high-post and hit a few 15-footers.
Just as long as he doesn't start falling in love with it.
At these workouts, just about all of the regulars have been present at one time or another: Curry, Robinson, Marbury, Crawford, Richardson, Lee, Balkman, Collins, Chandler, etc. Word is sometimes Isiah has even jumped into the fray.
Isiah has also been out to Vegas to keep tabs on David Lee at the USA basketball practices, where he is playing on a development squad that scrimmages against the varsity.
* *
The Demetris Nichols situation is interesting, to say the least. The kid has no interest in Europe, that's obvious. What you wonder now is what do the Knicks do with him? Clearly there is a log-jam in the backcourt and Nichols would be the lowest man on the totem pole behind Marbury, Jamal, Nate, Collins and Fred Jones. So then what? Do you eat a roster spot and put him in the D-League for a while? Do you trade him?
If you're asking me, I'd keep the kid. Put him in training camp and let him compete. You can never have too many shooters. Nichols has a lot to learn when it comes to taking good shots and not forcing (as we saw in the summer league), but he does have a stroke. I think it's worth having a rookie with a J on the bench than an out-of-shape veteran. It's worth one spot on your roster to invest in the future. I still believe the better move is to have open comp in training camp and dump a veteran who doesn't show up in shape and ready to play and contribute.
Now if Geoff Petrie takes a liking to the kid...
* *
Some thoughts on the Marbury/Vick stuff:
I want to keep the parameters of this blog set within the basketball boundaries. Nothing political, nothing racial. We're here to talk ball and the Knicks. I think most of you agree there are other places in the blogsphere for debating all of the socialogical issues that exist in our world. If you want to opine on Michael Vick, check out Bob Glauber's blog What About Bob? and have it out there.
But I will address a different issue than dog-fighting and the more heinous crime of how the dogs were tortured and discuss something I at least have an educated opinion on: the media asking Stephon Marbury about Vick.
It's a Catch-22 for a reporter when it comes to Marbury now, especially after some of the bizzarre things he's done and said this summer. Part of you wants to avoid him because you don't want him to say something stupid and turn it into a senseless frenzy, but really part of your job is to be there in case he does say something stupid (aka "makes news"), because if you're the only one who doesn't have it, you're in trouble with your boss.
I understand the thought that some of you have offered: why ask Marbury about Michael Vick? They are not teammates. I don't even know if they know each other. They play two different sports not even in the same city. There is no relevance other than the fact that they are both professional athletes.
It's obviously a bait question...the dangerous tool in our toolbox. Ask him about something controversial and see what he says. If you watch the clip, the guy holding the mic is nodding along with what Stephon is saying. That suggests he's agreeing, even though later he likely acted appalled by it, especially as he was explaining it to his editor. They knew they had a story.
What's even worse than just standing there nodding as Marbury said what he said, no one took on Stephon or asked him to clarify. That's something every one of us among the Knicks beat - well, almost all of us - would do instinctively. Without question, you can't let him walk away after saying what he said. You can't follow up with, "So about your new sneaker line..." or "How would you feel about playing with Kobe?"
At this point in his life, Stephon Marbury is not going to listen to someone in PR or a "publicist" to tell him not to comment on controversial issues or politics. It's true, why not also ask him what he thinks about global warming or Iraq? No matter what he says, it's just one man's opinion. We as people put too much stock into what famous people say, whether they are celebrities, rock stars or pro athletes, as if they have some sort of authority in intelligence because of their public status.
We are not biographers or publicists. We are not here to make friends or cut deals. One of the many important reasons for media is to use our inside access to educate. Not necessarily to teach what is right or wrong, but to offer the differences that exist in our world and the reasons behind it. Not everything is explainable. But through reading, you get a better understanding. You can decide from that whether or not you, for instance, admire or appreciate the person we have interviewed or you can form your own opinion about an issue that is being covered.
You know, important stuff like should David Lee be traded for Ron Artest.
The worst kind of reporting is when you're left wondering why the story was even written, such as why Marbury was asked about Michael Vick in the first place. I'm not at all trying to shield Stephon from the ignorance he portrayed in his comments. I'm only acknowledging that there is also guilt in the questioner. But the questioner is looking for a sound-byte because you, the reader, is looking for something juicy to read and to talk about. The cycle. And Stephon has showed us this summer that he can be suckered into playing into the cycle.
It's his responsiblity to put a stop to it if he so desires by simply declining to answer the question (he often does it with us). To solely blame the media is not accurate. As they say, don't hate the player, hate the game.
But to make Mark and his friends feel more comfortable, I'll offer this quote that takes that point a step further:
"The men with the muck-rake are often indispensable to the well-being of society," Theodore Roosevelt once said, "but only if they know when to stop raking the muck."
That's the fine line we walk in this business.
|
8/22/2007 1:23 PM