I never criticized Isiah for saying that. I criticized him for trading BOTH picks. I could care less what they say, for the most part, besides a couple of isolated things. Actions speak louder than words.

Curry has not lived up to it. At this point, I'm not sure if I'd take Morrison or Reddick over Curry, so I can understand even this years pick, but next year is the real killer.

Posted by Allanfan20:

I never criticized Isiah for saying that. I criticized him for trading BOTH picks. I could care less what they say, for the most part, besides a couple of isolated things. Actions speak louder than words.

Curry has not lived up to it. At this point, I'm not sure if I'd take Morrison or Reddick over Curry, so I can understand even this years pick, but next year is the real killer.

There isn't one GM in the NBA that would take Reddick or Morrison over Curry....NOT ONE....It's not even close.....You have to be kidding....



[Edited by - holfresh on 03-25-2006 7:48 PM]

[Edited by - holfresh on 03-25-2006 7:48 PM]

Posted by holfresh:

Posted by Allanfan20:

I never criticized Isiah for saying that. I criticized him for trading BOTH picks. I could care less what they say, for the most part, besides a couple of isolated things. Actions speak louder than words.

Curry has not lived up to it. At this point, I'm not sure if I'd take Morrison or Reddick over Curry, so I can understand even this years pick, but next year is the real killer.

There isn't one GM in the NBA that would take Reddick or Morrison over Curry....NOT ONE....It's not even close.....You have to be kidding....



[Edited by - holfresh on 03-25-2006 7:48 PM]

[Edited by - holfresh on 03-25-2006 7:48 PM]

Why? Curry = Swine. I am basing that on potential alone. But if it were based on TODAY, I'm taking Reddick or Morrison.

Posted by Allanfan20:

I never criticized Isiah for saying that. I criticized him for trading BOTH picks. I could care less what they say, for the most part, besides a couple of isolated things. Actions speak louder than words.

Curry has not lived up to it. At this point, I'm not sure if I'd take Morrison or Reddick over Curry, so I can understand even this years pick, but next year is the real killer.

I know you never criticized him for saying that. A few others have, though. I agree with you that trading both unprotected picks has turned out to be a terrible decision. When I said the Mo Taylor trade was too minimal in its impact to be the disaster some were calling it, maybe now with the two unprotected picks in the Curry trade people can see what I was saying. I'd take ten Mo Taylor type trades just to get our unprotected picks back!


[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 03-26-2006 07:54 AM]

Posted by Allanfan20:

I still consider it a disaster, just b/c Mo T is still here. I never liked him, not even when he was playing good, b/c I knew it wasn't going to last long. He was still a ball hog then anyway, and he's one now and even WHEN he was playing well, his rebounding still blew.

Disaster is something that kills a franchise for a few years. The Mo Taylor trade was undesirable but not a disaster. An analogy might be that getting a paper cut is undesirable but no disaster.

^ That is good!

The 2005-2006 New York Knicks: Like getting a million paper cuts!

Posted by Allanfan20:

If you give you give yourself a million paper cuts, you're bound to lose blood!

Put it this way: Do you think that in a mere 15 months the Mo Taylor trade will have had any remaining negative impact on the team? Of Course, not; Mo will probably be gone. How can something be a disaster for the franchise when it has such a brief impact that probably never made a difference in the win column? In contrast, not having protection on the next two lottery picks could impact the franchise for the next ten or 15 years if we miss out on our next Patrick Ewing. That's what a disaster is!

Marv: I don't think any of the moves Zeke made originally had to do with LB. I think he had one plan, then he was able to get LB and now his plan has changed. Whether they are on the same page right now is anyone's guess and unfortunately only time will tell. I don't think Jalen and Stevie were brought in to bring us a title. I think they were brought in to try to keep us from giving chicago the #1 pick. While at the same time giving us possible trade assets.

Now you will see LB do what Parcells has done elsewhere. I'm not asking to turn LB into a GM. What I'm asking is for him and Zeke to work together. Not a tough concept. If LB says I need a defensive PG I'm hoping my GM(no matter what his name is) goes out and gets one. I don't care who's idea it was to get who. As long as they discuss players together and realize that they are on the same team and not competing against each other to save their jobs. This is what guys like Parcells' do. "get me this type of player."

Posted by Bippity10:

Unfortunately as fans we need to realize that allthis takes time and probalby more losing.

bippity I have a question for you, do you think scott layden should have been allowed to continue to be GM?

The biggest myth in the NBA is the myth of franchise players. There are only two(soon to be one) in the entire NBA. Now after Detroit won teams are finally refocusing and realizing you don't need a "franchise" player to win it all. You need an organization and need to build. If you look at the champions over the past few years you will see coach's that have been there for a few years, GM's that do thy bidding and organizations that support every move that the two make together. IF you think it's koombaya(however you spell it) talk my guess is that you are probably rooting for a team that hasn't won a title in 30+ years.

The LA clippers have had more lottery picks than the New york lottery, yet they didn't start winning until they became committed to it. In NY we constantly think we are one player, or one lucky ping pong ball away from a title. And this my friends is why we don't win.

Posted by martin:

Posted by holfresh:

Well Bip, sounds like a solid idea...The whole unity stuff sounds great,the only thing is, this is the NBA...No organization builds its team around a coach, the idea is usually to get two good young players and build around them...

I think you are taking it too literally. There has to be a match between coaches and players. Phoenix sure has matched the coach and players. They knew they wanted to go uptempo and had D'Antoni and some high fliers. Marb and Penny didn't want to by in to that system and so were moved (they were moved for more than just that obviously).

It's ironic that that decision was made about Marbury on an evaluation of about an 8 week period during most of which the team's best player was injured (Amare). Not too long before that eight week period, their GM thought Marbury fit into the system so well that he gave Marbury about a $100 million contract extension.