Posted by Solace:
Posted by EnySpree:
Posted by Panos:
BTW, I do think we could possibly get KG for the right package -- MAYBE.
But we'd have to give them all our young bright spots and probably take
back more bad contracts.
KG is the obvious guy but we know mchale is gonna rape kg till his contracts up.
My point is that a lot of these blow hards like to shout the knicks need a big man and then you ask them the simple question, "who?" and they usually get mad or try to change the subject to the team needing to play defense. Then they say Larry brown couldn't do it so what is isiah gonna do.
Wanna talk gay robot? These are your gay robots.
The knicks have decent big men. Isiah hasn't gotten results but the dude has tried to get young bigmen. These guys are up and coming still.
I think the point being that the type of big man we need is the ones we can't acquire because we haven't put ourselves into the position to do so. So, the best we can do is with what we've acquired through the draft and through trade. Not bad, but obviously, "not bad" doesn't win you championships in the NBA. Had we made a play to get under the cap, maybe Ben Wallace would've been a possibility. See, the gripe isn't about who we *could* get today, it's who we *could've* gotten with some better cap and personnel management. Right now, we have Curry, Frye and Lee. Fine. With some better management, maybe we'd have Ben Wallace, Tyrus Thomas, a shot at Greg Oden PLUS either Frye or Bynum.
This is exactly right. The point people make is that the Knicks need a dominant big man.
Just because those people could not come up with a deal that makes sense, does not make
the fact any less true. It is the job of management to figure out how to make that happen.
And like Solace says, it might just be that we're too screwed for it to happen.
Bottom line: the two facts "the Knicks need a dominant big man" and "I don't know how to make
that happen" are not mutually exclusive.
