Marbury self proclaimed himself the best PG in the league was a top 5 pick in a great draft.

He was a STAR player that gave US KNICK fans a lot less then 100%!

Crawford was too much of a chucker for me..... Good role player lots of desire but a role player that happened
to play on a losing team....

Seemed at times comfortable losing as long as he was getting off

Lee and Chandler are both late round picks.....( Benched a lot early on with Isiah which no one remembers!)
who both give all they got!!

2 guys who dont want to lose...... Lee gets abused a lot on here but he for sure has OVERACHIEVED as has Wilson Chandler!!

I'll take 5 guys with heart and less skills over 5 PRIMA DONNA's any day!!

And that's the difference

Chandler and Lee both play in a team concept, and swing the ball on offense if they don't have a shot. I also think they play better defense than Crawford/Marbury (Lee sucks but Chandler is the best defender of this bunch by far).

However, if your comparison was Marbury+Crawford and Harrington+Robinson going for 50+ in a losing effort... then you have a point. To me, how the team gets that 50 is the key difference.

As a fan, I totally prefer our current team to the old one... I think most Knick fans would agree.

crawford, for the longest, has been regarded as a losing player. but he's now part of a top 10 team in the league.

zach too - he's doing just fine in memphis.

but chandler and lee were never called losing players here. why are some players looked at differently than others since it's apparent here that win/loss record has no bearing?

contract?
hometown player?
expectations?

djsunyc wrote:what i'm trying to get at is what in your eyes constitutes a winning player and a losing player?

crawford, for the longest, has been regarded as a losing player. but he's now part of a top 10 team in the league.

zach too - he's doing just fine in memphis.

but chandler and lee were never called losing players here. why are some players looked at differently than others since it's apparent here that win/loss record has no bearing?

contract?
hometown player?
expectations?

I've asked the same questions many times...They call Nate a losing player as well...He will help another team next year too...

SupremeCommander wrote:

umynot wrote: I'll take 5 guys with heart and less skills over 5 PRIMA DONNA's any day!!

And that's the difference

+1

Jamal was not a primadonna... a volume scorer, yes, but the guy was not all about himself like Marbury was... & Jamal may lack things like defensive consistency & shot selection, but heart is definitely something he doesn't lack... dude has hit some of the most clutch shots i've ever seen.

TMS wrote:

djsunyc wrote:what i'm trying to get at is what in your eyes constitutes a winning player and a losing player?

crawford, for the longest, has been regarded as a losing player. but he's now part of a top 10 team in the league.

zach too - he's doing just fine in memphis.

but chandler and lee were never called losing players here. why are some players looked at differently than others since it's apparent here that win/loss record has no bearing?

contract?
hometown player?
expectations?

IMO some of it may have to do with an Isiah double standard that people have... they hate his trade acquisitions but give a pass to his draft picks... another reason was the money that the Knicks were paying Marbury & Jamal but they weren't helping us win a ton of ballgames, so it's easier to lay blame at their feet over guys playing for modest salaries that are putting up numbers... that's the old bang for the buck mindset coming into play.

personally i hated Marbury not because he didn't produce, but because he was an idiot & a cancer to the team... had nothing to do w/Isiah bringing him here... i was actually optimistic when we got the guy, thought he might change his ways in NY... his first season in NY i was happy to have him til he started in with his idiotic comments calling himself the best PG in the NBA & fighting with his head coach... & i've always liked Jamal, was sad to see him go but understood why we had to unload his contract for the longterm betterment of the team... if he had an expiring contract i wish he were still here... i thought he was a humble guy, very likable, & a tremendously talented & clutch player... i like Lee & Wilson because of the team mentality they both display, their humility, & the fact that they were drafted by us, developed by us & have improved steadily every year... they're not all about themselves like Marbury was.

i think tms got it... $$$ vs ROI. pay a guy 20 mill and get no playoffs. pay a guy 6mill same results, its a bit easier to take (failure). plus the younger guys are that, younger... they may develop into complete players in the future... that and you kinda knew what you would get from z/jc. watching chandler get better and lee play well (on off) and dg get better gives me reason to hope all isnt lost.

SupremeCommander wrote:

umynot wrote: I'll take 5 guys with heart and less skills over 5 PRIMA DONNA's any day!!

And that's the difference

+1

It's impossible to have heart and still lose by 50. No heart is the reason why they lost by 50.

Get 'em all outta here before next year. Keep some of the youths and don't overpay Nate or Lee if you sign them. Everyone else, ADIOS.