i think it's pretty lame and unfounded to call what walsh has done here mismanagement. you can insult the draft picks but he has made trades with his ultimate goal in mind and never wavered. he didn't come in here and stick with zach and crawford so we could battle for the 8th seed till 2012. he came in here and cleaned house because he wanted to get under the cap and he accomplished that. that was the only plausible scenario to go with considering we haven't been under the cap since 1996.

d'antoni hss had a rough 2nd season here in ny but every year the coach gets the blame for the awful team. knicks have fired everyone from don chaney to larry brown to isiah himself in the past 10 years. most of the time the roster just sucked. the roster sucks here too. is that an excuse for his flip flopping on certain things? no. but to call it an "ego trip" is a huge stretch. when you're dealing with a bunch of spoonfed millionaire egos playing for their next contract, it's never going to be easy.

oohah wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:Um... They bought Marbury out, whose contract effectively expired. They are trading for McGrady and likely will let his contract expire (unless McGrady reemerges). The same salary cap outcome is being achieved. I'm unsure what you are talking about

They did not make use of Marbury's contract. It effectively expired when it had use to obtain talent or some other kind of asset. Are you unfamiliar with similar dealings? That is what I am talking about.

oohah

no i'm not familiar with similar dealings because there are none. why would anyone want to pay marbury $23 million to act like a clown instead of just keeping their own players? nearly everyone in the nba knew marbury was done. his only destination was boston as a backup pg. nobody wanted him. just like nobody wanted raef lafrentz and his $15 million expiring contract last year. the blazers let it expire and that was the end of it.

oohah wrote:

Childs2Dudley wrote:what are you talking about. first of all, marbury was marbury. marbury was never on tmac's level and tmac was not embarrassing himself and the organization everywhere he went. the knicks had a few discussions for marbury's deal, like for kenny thomas and brad miller, but ultimately they let it expire because there was no point in any of these trades. nobody was going to give anything of value for marbury in an expiring for expiring deal. if we were taking on a longer contract, sure. but why would we do that when we were pursuing a plan?

i think it's pretty lame and unfounded to call what walsh has done here mismanagement. you can insult the draft picks but he has made trades with his ultimate goal in mind and never wavered. he didn't come in here and stick with zach and crawford so we could battle for the 8th seed till 2012. he came in here and cleaned house because he wanted to get under the cap and he accomplished that. that was the only plausible scenario to go with considering we haven't been under the cap since 1996.

d'antoni hss had a rough 2nd season here in ny but every year the coach gets the blame for the awful team. knicks have fired everyone from don chaney to larry brown to isiah himself in the past 10 years. most of the time the roster just sucked. the roster sucks here too. is that an excuse for his flip flopping on certain things? no. but to call it an "ego trip" is a huge stretch. when you're dealing with a bunch of spoonfed millionaire egos playing for their next contract, it's never going to be easy.

Lots of words with not much substance there, Dud. Past "Levels" don't really play into the equation, but if you look at their careers, McGrady never won much, Marbury never won much. Even. Marbury was healthy last year, McGrady is coming off a surgery which may effectively end his career as a good player in the NBA. Marbury up 1. McGrady screws his tam with his behavior, so does Marbury. Even.

There has been mismanagement on both the GM and coaching level. You may not agree now but you will soon enough, as soon as you stop reasoning with hope, and start reasoning with objectivity.

oohah

nothing you said was a reasonable retort. you basically said "wait and see, things will fail" in a fancier way. thanks for that.

Childs2Dudley wrote:

nothing you said was a reasonable retort. you basically said "wait and see, things will fail" in a fancier way. thanks for that.

There was nothing to retort to. You basically said that you are happy to whistle show tunes while being led off of a cliff.

oohah

oohah wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:Um... They bought Marbury out, whose contract effectively expired. They are trading for McGrady and likely will let his contract expire (unless McGrady reemerges). The same salary cap outcome is being achieved. I'm unsure what you are talking about

They did not make use of Marbury's contract. It effectively expired when it had use to obtain talent or some other kind of asset. Are you unfamiliar with similar dealings? That is what I am talking about.

oohah

The reason to trade for Stephon Marbury is to let his contract expire from the cap. That's exactly what happened and the Knicks chose to keep that benefit, instead of trading that benefit.

If rumors hold true, the Knicks are trading for TMac in large part to dump Jared Jeffries salary, presumably to let TMac EXPIRE. The final salary cap result effectively being the same.

See, if the Knicks traded Marbury, they would have taken on salary obligations for other assets. That would be irony. I'm unsure of the irony in executing a trade that runs parallel to managements stated strategy.

Childs2Dudley wrote:

oohah wrote:

Childs2Dudley wrote:
no i'm not familiar with similar dealings because there are none. why would anyone want to pay marbury $23 million to act like a clown instead of just keeping their own players? nearly everyone in the nba knew marbury was done. his only destination was boston as a backup pg. nobody wanted him. just like nobody wanted raef lafrentz and his $15 million expiring contract last year. the blazers let it expire and that was the end of it.

So you've never seen a big expiring contract used to benefit a team before? I welcome you to NBA basketball rookie fan!

oohah

Heh. what concept of "WE ARE NOT TAKING ON FUTURE SALARY" don't you understand? NOBODY is trading for marbury unless they're unloading garbage contracts on you. just like how nearly every other expiring deal SAVES the team trading for the expiring deal money. it's not that hard of a concept to understand. team A trades expiring contract to team B to save money. team B takes on extra salary to save team A money on future long-term salary. team A does not trade for a $23 million expiring clown for the hell of it. team B does not trade the $23 million expiring clown if they are getting back long term contracts. in case you didn't realize, team B would be the Knicks.

It's just fashionable at the moment to bash Knicks' management without rhyme or reason

SupremeCommander wrote:
It's just fashionable at the moment to bash Knicks' management without rhyme or reason

It's also fashionable to blindly support a plan of action that has a low percentage of success.

Soon it will be fashionable to bitch about it and pretend that one never supported said plan.

oohah

oohah wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:
See, if the Knicks traded Marbury, they would have taken on salary obligations for other assets.

A) Not necessarily.

You are the one that equated the two situations--not me.

oohah wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:That would be irony. I'm unsure of the irony in executing a trade that runs parallel to managements stated strategy.

B) Maybe they could have gotten picks or players who are good.

C) Notice how the Knicks' current #8 draft pick and possible future draft picks are in play for Houston?

oohah

All I said is that there is no irony in being consistent. You understand what the word means, right?

Notice how the #8 pick and future picks are in play to shed salary? See how point A) and point C) completely contradict each other?

babyKnicks wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

oohah wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:
It's just fashionable at the moment to bash Knicks' management without rhyme or reason

It's also fashionable to blindly support a plan of action that has a low percentage of success.

Soon it will be fashionable to bitch about it and pretend that one never supported said plan.

oohah

Where have I pledged my support?

already bactracking?

What the hell are you talking about?

Like I said, quote where I pledged my unwavering support to Walsh in THIS or ANY thread.

What I've said in the past is I think he'll leve it in better condition than Isiah and you can interpret that how you want. I've also blasted his failed trades of Nate + JJ and for not acquiring Washington's pick last year. I know y'all see in black and white but don't try to stick me on the opposite side because I think pointing fingers and screaming is insane