everything but the actual year the Thorpe trade was made.

Posted by SlimPack:

Posted by McK1:

Posted by Bonn1997:

I don't get the question. Should Jerry West have been fired when the Grizzlies gave up the #2 pick? No, he was beginning to develop a good young team that hadn't yet learned how to win and still had significant wholes. NOt too much later they won 50. Isiah should be fired if after 4 years his plan is still not working. Same with any GM. If you didn't think someone was smart enough to develop a 4 year plan, you shouldn't have hired them. If you did think they were smart enough to develop a 4 year plan, you give them the 4 years you hired them for. If you hired them hoping for a 2 year plan, you had no idea how long it takes to turn around a bad lottery team.


[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 01-26-2006 8:37 PM]

Jerry West didn't make that trade. People who try and compare Zeke to West please get your facts straight.

Prior to the 02-03 season, West was in LA as a personnel exec of the 3-peat Lakers.

Otis Thorpe was traded to the Griz by Detroit prior to the 97-98 season.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/otis_thorpe/
[Edited by - McK1 on 01-26-2006 9:20 PM]

[Edited by - McK1 on 01-26-2006 9:26 PM]

wow mck1 did you know all of that off the top of your head or did you have to look it up? well even though what bonn says makes sense I still think that he is being to patient with isiah. what bonn said about waiting 4 years is logical becuase obviously no one would be able to turn the crap that layden left into a winning team overnight. but the reason I think isiah should be fired before then is becuase is is clear, to me at least, that he wont be able to turn this team into a winning team at the rate that he is going now within four years. the reason why I think this is is becuase isiah constantly makes "win now" moves and "win later" moves at the same time and I dont think this team will ever prosper that way. but I suppose there is a small chance that IT's moves will start to work within the next two seasons, so maybe letting him stay is the fair thing to do. I dont know anymore, all I know is watching this knicks team sickens me

That was quite an oxymoron. I'm still spinning

i will say bab cck did pull off a much better vet-to vet trade than Isiah, and Isiah had 20 whacks at it[i.e mike james for alston]. Also, Bab cck used his mLE wisley on Calderon[only 6mm of it] while isiah used it on jerome james[the whole 30mm] although in the draft dept, i have read pretty conclusive evidnece that someone trumped him to draft CV--he wanted A wright

but hey gozit guzin

yeah but isiah thomas has changed plans, so do we give him a new 4 years? if his plan is to win with the young players than that will take 3 or 4 more seasons.

I'm not sure in what sense he changed plans but I wasn't planning to give him 4 fresh years. 4 total years would be reasonable to me. You can say I'm too patient. I've been posting here for a couple of years now and I've seen most posters opinions of Isiah change by 180 degrees once every 3 months approximately. My opinion of the team at this stage is NOT based on the W-L record; it's based on the young players Isiah is building with (Frye, Curry, Nate, Lee, maybe Ariza and Butler) as well as Marbury. I think it's a good enough core that the the team can start winning within a year if Isiah uses the trade assets well, starting with AD and Penny's expiring contracts. If he doesn't get something good out of them, the team will be in bad shape for quite a while. I've been posting here long enough to know that if Isiah gets draft picks (maybe a 1st rder and 2nd rder) and/or an established good player with those assets, people's opinions will reverse 180 degrees again.

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 01-26-2006 11:45 PM]

How can you give a GM 4 years? GM's deserve time, but when they make questionabnle moves and the team continues losing who else is to blame?