Posted by martin:

What does playing Marbury gain you?

Posted by oohah:

Posted by martin:

What does playing Marbury gain you?

Perhaps a chance to move him without getting bent over.

oohah

Perhaps.

Perhaps George Bush can be re-elected this year.

Perhaps.

Okay, that was mean, but c'mon oohah, who is going to trade for Steph's deal?

The cost-benefit ratio makes such little sense that I just don't get how it will ever happen...

and apparently the Knicks think so too.

Don't you think they've checked for his market value, and considered if they thought he had a chance at being dealt this year?

The amount of credit you award D'Antoni and Walsh seems to be about the same as Isiah, IMHO, and I don't think that's what is what most think is the reality.

Posted by PresIke:



Perhaps.

Perhaps George Bush can be re-elected this year.

Perhaps.

Okay, that was mean, but c'mon oohah, who is going to trade for Steph's deal?

The cost-benefit ratio makes such little sense that I just don't get how it will ever happen...

and apparently the Knicks think so too.

Don't you think they've checked for his market value, and considered if they thought he had a chance at being dealt this year?

The amount of credit you award D'Antoni and Walsh seems to be about the same as Isiah, IMHO, and I don't think that's what is what most think is the reality.

Posted by oohah:

Posted by PresIke:



Perhaps.

Perhaps George Bush can be re-elected this year.

Perhaps.

Okay, that was mean, but c'mon oohah, who is going to trade for Steph's deal?

It wasn't so much mean as so way off base as to be incomparable.

If you think an expiring 23 million dollar contract has no value, I don't know what to say to you. History tells a different story. Or maybe an injury occurs to another PG and they need an able fill-in. Either way, we have the whole season to explore those options.

We waited all this time with Marbury, and now we cut off our nose to spite our face. I guess that makes sense to some people, but not me.

The cost-benefit ratio makes such little sense that I just don't get how it will ever happen...

and apparently the Knicks think so too.

Don't you think they've checked for his market value, and considered if they thought he had a chance at being dealt this year?

The amount of credit you award D'Antoni and Walsh seems to be about the same as Isiah, IMHO, and I don't think that's what is what most think is the reality.

It seems to me that the crux of your argument is that this is what Walsh and D'Antoni thinks it must be right.

Or: This isn't Isiah so they must be doing the right thing.

I don't think that is sound reasoning.

Based on your commentary I'll bet dollars to donuts that if it were Isiah doing all this same stuff you would have a problem with it.

And they may have checked Marbury's value right now, but that does not equal his value for all points up until the trade deadline.

I don't have faith. I just look at what is going on and evaluate for my own self.

So I advise you to stop relying on the GM or coach as gurus who know everything and just evaluate what they are doing for yourself.

oohah

Again, where is Steph going to be traded and the Knicks get deals that don't hurt their goal of getting under the cap for 2010?

History is not the reality of the NBA anymore.

Z-Bo is at least 25, shown he can play better now on a team, and still makes $8 million less this season than Steph.

Again, most teams would have to gut their roster to get Marbury, who really makes closer to $22 million.

We were never able to move Allan Houston, and only GM's like Isiah took on big contracts for players who had dropped in value.

Most teams don't even want him, and those that probably do, don't have the players to make a deal work that won't ruin their team.

The Knicks are probably also holding onto him, just in case, sure.

Also, the switch the logic on the argument about Isiah vs. D'Antoni/Walsh to say they must be doing the right thing is not logical. This is getting to be stupid.

I didn't say that was why they were doing the right thing, I said it is not Isiah, so stop assuming they are doing the wrong thing. There are multiple other reasons I listed here and elsewhere why I think it is the right thing. Stop with, what seems like, an assumption that I am blindly supporting their moves. Actually, I supported Isiah for a while, but it was when it became abundantly clear through his decisions on difficult matters, especially the Marbury situation last year, that I changed my tune.

Yet, it takes one less than a week into the season to know for sure they are doing the same thing and lose faith (sounds like you didn't have it to begin with), with very little evidence to support such claims, and actually plenty of evidence to the contrary?

They've explained where they are coming from, and are sticking to it.

It also makes a lot of sense for the long term. Good strategists know that sometimes there are short term problems, like Steph, but they go away eventually.

Well, you can go ahead and evaluate. I do as well, but neither of us are GMs or coaches in the NBA. I usually consider a bit more evidence than something like this to make a fair assessment. You don't have faith after this?

Don't panic, man. It's way too early for that.

[Edited by - PresIke on 11-03-2008 4:24 PM]