Posted by BlueSeats:

Yeah, but 4 lottery picks means nothing to a megalomaniac with a messiah complex who thinks he can turn water into wine.

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Yeah, but 4 lottery picks means nothing to a megalomaniac with a messiah complex who thinks he can turn water into wine.

I used the same reference today Blue when referring to Jamal and Lee.

that's why i don't need to post anymore.

Here was my response to TKF in another thread

Posted by TrueBlue:
Not necessarily think of how many players would want to come play for our team come 2009/2010 when we're an up and coming team again. We got to break away from the mentality of thinking players like Crawford(Hydrogen) and Lee(Oxygen) will turn into players like Roy and Aldridge(Wine). Holding on to players like Lee and Jamal especially when Lee is due for an extension next yr only assures us of being a 30-40win team. Lather, Wash, Rinse, Repeat enough with this cycle tear it down by maximizing returns on every asset that still remains.

Notice how I broke Water down into two elements on the periodic table to show we don't even have a player that represents water as a whole.

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Yeah, but 4 lottery picks means nothing to a megalomaniac with a messiah complex who thinks he can turn water into wine.

I used the same reference today Blue when referring to Jamal and Lee.

that's why i don't need to post anymore.

Here was my response to TKF in another thread

Posted by TrueBlue:
Not necessarily think of how many players would want to come play for our team come 2009/2010 when we're an up and coming team again. We got to break away from the mentality of thinking players like Crawford(Hydrogen) and Lee(Oxygen) will turn into players like Roy and Aldridge(Wine). Holding on to players like Lee and Jamal especially when Lee is due for an extension next yr only assures us of being a 30-40win team. Lather, Wash, Rinse, Repeat enough with this cycle tear it down by maximizing returns on every asset that still remains.

Notice how I broke Water down into two elements on the periodic table to show we don't even have a player that represents water as a whole.

But we have a lot of players who represent the urine...

Posted by iyamwutiam:

I think all iam saying is that in life - all is not what it appears. For example - why would someone - who is still basking inthe glory of picking Camby, Stoudemire, Mcgrady go out and give away TWO number one draft picks for a perennially selfish, disgruntled player who already had 'returned' to his home area - to be traded.

It makes no sense - unless you give it context. The context is simple - why would someone with only 3-4 years of experience be handed the richest franchise in the NBA? Well - only one reason:
1. No one else (of any quality) wanted the job/roster/salary cap headaches- most 'smart' people knew that this wasn't a opportunity but a problem that had been festering via Riley/Van Gundy and Layden ever since our franchise player (Ewing) was gone. So by the end of 2002 or 2003 -any smart GM would have seenthe roster/salary cap -and hurdles and passed. Do you really think Dolan didn't want to get someone else!! Also do you really think that Isiah was going to be able to call the shots? I mean you hired the least qualified person for the oldest, rischest franchise in the NBA and you really expect thatthe guy would be able to make all decisions as he saw fit? Anyone who has kept a job - knows the answer to that one. It is a job and sometimes -y ou swallow it- to keep your job and hope that your day will come- it did - he got an extension.

Back to the main question:
1. If you step into the your job - and your boss says - well we have to do something - we need to bring in a STAR - and somone who the fans can warm up to or get excited about. Well you look around - Kobe-no deal, KG (back then) -no deal, Shaq (back then) no deal, --you get the drift - only one possible dude- Marbury. So you do it. But I ask you if your whole life - you basically build through the draft or developing young players - and if you 'really' (key word here) were in charge - would anyone bring in Marbury. I think not - especially if you have played/coached and GM'd inthe league - it is no secret -that Marbury was very tainted goods.

As for Cury - I doubt there is any intention to turn Curry into an all round player - per se. The whole world knows that he is a scorer- and since playing 20 minutes a game in his second year -all he has done is score 6000 points!! he will score an average of a 1000 points a season for the KNicks despite all of this hullaboo. He was a scorer - he was brought in to be a scorer- if he does improve somewhat on defense - super-but look up all the centers in the league (that are Curry's age or evena bit older) - very few have scored 6000 points in 5 years or so- the exceptions - Stoudemire, Kg , Duncan - you get it. No one ever said Curry was in the league of these guys - because if he was - the Knciks would never be able to get him. He is a presence in the post (offensively) pure and simple and if the Kicks actaully had some decent outside shooters - to make team pay for double or triple teaming him - we probably would have had more wins. But he is only 25 this year - and if the guy gives you 20 pts/7 rebounds/1 block /3 assists a nite for only 9 million a year - why not. BTw - we din't give away draft picks - we exchanged them - an I still contend we gave away two years because of LB's desire to have Antonio Brown included in the deal.

Look at Noah (voted not to start for an explosive outburst - never happened with a rookie) and Tyrus (I love to goaltend) Thomas- Curry is defintely an NBA seasoned guy who is in the league since he is 18 and can score in the post. Ask Chicago - if they are So smart and Ben Wallace is so good defensively - how did Curry score 29 points!!

Posted by iyamwutiam:

Excellent question:

Because the dirty work is not done. You watch as soon as the team makes the playoffs consistently or is seen as much improved- sure enough you will have Larry Bird, Chris Mullin , Donnie Nelson come sniffing around wanting this job.

Same thing hapened in Indiana- Larry Legend left when it was obvious the Indiana pacers after losing Smis, Jackson etc were gona go no where- so answer- hire Isiah. Team gets good - answer- Fire Isiah.

So how long it should take? 2-3 more years?
And then what? Isiah is not idiot and he learned the lesson.
He will screw it again to get the "job is not done extension".
And again, and again, and again.
Do you really think that everybody and not only Dolan are idiots to buy this forever?

Posted by iyamwutiam:

Excellent question:

Because the dirty work is not done. You watch as soon as the team makes the playoffs consistently or is seen as much improved- sure enough you will have Larry Bird, Chris Mullin , Donnie Nelson come sniffing around wanting this job.

Same thing hapened in Indiana- Larry Legend left when it was obvious the Indiana pacers after losing Smis, Jackson etc were gona go no where- so answer- hire Isiah. Team gets good - answer- Fire Isiah.

Dude there's already a few GM's who want the job now. Donnie Walsh wants to show I SAY UGH respect and not pursue the interest, Kiki wanted a phone call. Calangelo was recommended by Stern which means he was very interested in the job. Chris Mullin is believed to be currently interested.

Posted by iyamwutiam:

Sorry I meant Aldridge/Pryzbilla and Frye

Look - know one can convince anyne who has already 'made' up ther mind. I am only takig a more cynical view of why Isiah was hired - and that unlike the press or reflexive tinking that goes on- wh asume that just becuase you have the job - thats in like some TV show - that from day one you are an unquestioned hot shot - who makes 'ALL' the decisions.

I ask you - which scenario is more about fooling people.