hard for Ike to show his repetoire with Baron Richardson Murphy Dunleavy & Fisher all pulling from any and everywhere.

Ike has shown he can play with his back to the basket and can face up and stroke out to 15. They get a coach who'll make them play half-copurt through Ike he'll put up double-doubles nightly.

Posted by McK1:

hard for Ike to show his repetoire with Baron Richardson Murphy Dunleavy & Fisher all pulling from any and everywhere.

Ike has shown he can play with his back to the basket and can face up and stroke out to 15. They get a coach who'll make them play half-copurt through Ike he'll put up double-doubles nightly.

oh come on man, more excuses, can't we say the same for curry, with marbs, craw, Q, nate and everyone else pulling from everywhere? I mentioned this before, last year actually that the warriors were not a playoff team this year even with barron davis, it is funny, everyone went crazy when I said that, telling me how good the warriors would be..LOL.. they are just as flawed as the knicks are, they do need to make some moves, I don't want Ike because we don't need another 6'8 PF who needs to fake 5 times before he can get his shot over someone 6'6... Last week Ike tried to dunk it on Travis Outlaw and got it thrown right back in his face, came back down got scared and walked with the ball, I believe that is a problem he will have trying to play down low with his size and really no hops....

Posted by McK1:

Posted by tkf:

Posted by McK1:

hard for Ike to show his repetoire with Baron Richardson Murphy Dunleavy & Fisher all pulling from any and everywhere.

Ike has shown he can play with his back to the basket and can face up and stroke out to 15. They get a coach who'll make them play half-copurt through Ike he'll put up double-doubles nightly.

oh come on man, more excuses, can't we say the same for curry, with marbs, craw, Q, nate and everyone else pulling from everywhere? I mentioned this before, last year actually that the warriors were not a playoff team this year even with barron davis, it is funny, everyone went crazy when I said that, telling me how good the warriors would be..LOL.. they are just as flawed as the knicks are, they do need to make some moves, I don't want Ike because we don't need another 6'8 PF who needs to fake 5 times before he can get his shot over someone 6'6... Last week Ike tried to dunk it on Travis Outlaw and got it thrown right back in his face, came back down got scared and walked with the ball, I believe that is a problem he will have trying to play down low with his size and really no hops....

you come on. Curry gets the damn ball. He is 1A-2nd option and consequently the 2nd leading scorer on the team.

GS is right there at the top of the league in 3pt fga's, NY is at the bottom. Plus compare the overall fg attempts for those 5 vs any 5 Curry plays with. Its not even close. Saying Ike and Curry are in the same sitch as far as touches is about as 20/50 vision a statement there is.

Ok, so it's all, baron, fisher(who is a role player), and Richardsons fault that Ike is not showing his Hakeem like all around game.... OK, that sounds good, lets cut them because they are holding this great player back..... LOL.. my lord..... Do you think that GS is that dumb to take touches away from Baron and Richardson to give to a 6'8 player parading as a PF,who has no moves? makes sense to me...(rolling eyes) This is not Elton Brand we are talking about man... Ike isn't getting touches for a reason... right now he is getting put backs and open layups, that is about the extent of his game, at this point...

Posted by fishmike:

I actually focused more on Pietrus when I thought of that trade, but I like Ike's motor.

I wasn't a pietrus fan at first, but I can deal with him, what do we have to lose a this point...

Posted by PresIke:

Pietrus has has shown signs as well, but who's to say he's going to be any better than Crawford?
[Edited by - PresIke on 02-02-2006 1:40 PM]

Well for one Pietrus plays damn good defense. Crawford doesnt know how to spell it. That alone puts Pietrus above Crawford.

My thing is I think Crawford as a backup 2 guard is a player most good teams, who need scoring, would be glad to have because of his offensive ability, especially in crunch time.

I think he's similar to a Bobby Jackson on the Kings a few years ago, when they had Christie as the 2 guard, who could score, but was in there because he was a very strong defender. They guy is not a superstar, nor a great defender, but when the Kings wanted to go with offense they had Jackson off the bench to light it up. I see Jamal having similar value as a kind of player that good teams, with better overall defenders, have coming off the bench. The problem isn't him per sey as much as the fact that we don't have a solid starting 2 guard, nor starting lineup, nor many good defenders.

Teams like the Spurs that have someone like Bruce Bowen at the 3 spot do so because they have a superstar in Tim Duncan down low and then great guards in Parker & Ginobli. Where are those players on the Knicks? That's why trading Frye as part of that deal, in my view, would be a mistake because we are short on guys that have a good chance to be close to a very good player, which Frye has shown strong potential at being.

The Spurs have also attempted this season to duplicate the same kind of situation the Kings had with Jackson (and other teams of the past have done as well) with the signing of Finley to backup Bowen and Ginobli, beacuse Horry is not a good enough scorer off the bench and is older than Finley.

If the Knicks had a better overall starting lineup of consistent players, especially at the 2 & 3 positions who can play defense, Crawford would be a nice bench player to have. Then factor in the chance that Frye becomes a very good player and learns to play better defense (which is more likely than someone like Crawford because he seems like a hard worker) then Crawford is not as much of a liability. That's why I'd rather not give up Craw & Frye unless it's part of a better overall deal than a few unproven young players and a solid backup point guard.

[Edited by - PresIke on 02-02-2006 2:45 PM]

If anything I'd MUCH rather trade Richardson than Crawford right now. He's a tweener who has little use on this squad. We need a REAL starting 3 and a REAL starting 2.

One team that comes to mind that MIGHT like Q1 is the Nuggets, but his play is so poor right now that I worry we are stuck with him unless it's part of some other deal involving a better player of ours.

Wow. You actually think thats a bad deal for the Knicks. Thats just mind boggling to me. I would jump on that trade in a damn second if GS offered it.

I don't necessarily think it's bad but I think it's a very risky deal that doesn't guarantee any more success for the long run.

Fisher may help us in the short term, but I'm not comfortable with giving up on Frye already, for Diogu (who's tough, but undersized) and Pietrus, who's nice, but also mostly unproven.

We know what Crawford is gonna bring, and I'm not in love with him, but I'd like to see what other ways we could adjust our weaknesses than putting both of those players in a package for not ONE proven player other than a backup PG.

So Craw knows he's gonna play. Put guys he REALLY has to compete with for PT, and I'd like to see how he reacts. If he shows to be a liability even then...then I have no problem with moving him.

Isn't that what Larry tried? Craw's minutes were very inconsistent based on his performance earlier in the year.

Posted by Bonn1997:

So Craw knows he's gonna play. Put guys he REALLY has to compete with for PT, and I'd like to see how he reacts. If he shows to be a liability even then...then I have no problem with moving him.

Isn't that what Larry tried? Craw's minutes were very inconsistent based on his performance earlier in the year.

Hey Bonn, what I meant to suggest was that Jamal is not really competing with anyone. Larry may have put him on the bench, but I suspect Crawford, who may be somewhat immature and have years of training his ego to become bloated, might be thinking "Larry, just by putting me on the bench doesn't mean that I don't think I deserve to be starting and adjust my game even more. There's no one on this team that deserves to be playing ahead of me, so for all of your attempts to "show me who's boss" I know I don't have to really do that much to play because you have no one else. And, I've made attempts to adjust my game this year more than anyone else. I've even read that in the press, so it ain't all my fault we suck."

I may be reaching and entirely wrong, but it wouldn't surprise me if he thinks something like that. He has no real competition at the starting 2 spot, nor at the backup 1, so the theory, in my view is not entirely proven. When we were playing well, remember, he was doing a lot of good things. Playing within the game, shooting for a high percentage etc. and everyone was saying how much he's improved, etc.

What happened? I dunno, maybe his confidence, like the rest of the team, is fragile and he is not the most consistent player in the NBA that's for sure. Which is why he works as a 6th man for me in the RIGHT situation, which we presently do not have, that's for sure.