Posted by fishmike:

Posted by Erniecat:

Lee: 19 pts., 14 rebs, 3 assists.

Knicks: Outscored 50-42 in 1st and 3rd quarters; outscore Bucks 63-57 in 2nd and 4th quarters.

People who feel Lee doesn't need to start: In denial.

yea
http://www.82games.com/0607/0607NYK.HTM

Its almost funny. The Knicks play the best when Lee is on the court and the worst when he's off the court. This even includes the guys that get spot duty.

Play him 40+ till he pukes. He's earned it and the right to start against the other team's best players.

sorry, this was meant in response to Fishmike:

Fish, those numbers are pretty insane. I did not think it was that dramatic. Now I am REALLY angry.

Posted by bigbeast:

Posted by arkrud:

Look at this from IT perspective.
Let’s say he played Lee 44-46 min (like after the Brawl)
It's not granted but very likely the tem will win most of the games and Lee will get monster recognition...
So how IT will looks like... Like a joke...
All his trades and most of the drafting will look irrelevant and stupid as the only player who really improved the team is a side product of his drafting and was never projected by IT like main acquisition.
IT is smart-ass so he will never shoot himself in the leg this way.

Please, help me understand how IT will look like a joke when the player he discovered (and 29 other teams past on) helps his team win games? This theroy that IT is somehow holding Lee back makes no sense. So if Isiah sits Frye (the player he drafted) in favor of Lee (the player he drafted), he looks bad? Huh? This argument would make more sense if Lee was drafted by Layden.

Heres the bottom line, I don't think Lee not starting is the resaon why were losing games. Losing the Net and Wiz games had nothig to do with Lee not getting the start. We just didn't make the plays at the end to secure victory (and Lee was on the court at end).

Isiah can juggle this lineup all he wants, the bottom line is we have a bunch of inconsistant players that wont be cured by starting Lee. This is an average/to below average team right now regardless of whether Lee starts or not.

Put it this way......Isiah drafted Frye at 8 and Lee at 29. And Lee is severely outplaying Frye.

For some reason Isiah decided to draft 2 guys that played the same position(or players he was going to play at the same position) in the same draft. Imagine if he had drafted Bynum/Granger/Green-guys that had a shot to go that high-and Lee at 29 and Nate(I preferred Jarrett Jack but I digress).

Imagine if we had a Bynum working behind Curry for two or three years to get seasoned. Then when Curry opts out of his contract, we have Bynum just waiting there to step into a lineup next to Lee. Or if we drafted Granger have a Curry-Lee-Granger lineup. I know it's hindsight, but it sort of shows a scatter shot way of doing things. Throw enough crap against a wall eventually some of it is gonna stick. Collect as many bigs as you can and and eventually at least ONE will pay off.

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by bigbeast:

Posted by arkrud:

Look at this from IT perspective.
Let’s say he played Lee 44-46 min (like after the Brawl)
It's not granted but very likely the tem will win most of the games and Lee will get monster recognition...
So how IT will looks like... Like a joke...
All his trades and most of the drafting will look irrelevant and stupid as the only player who really improved the team is a side product of his drafting and was never projected by IT like main acquisition.
IT is smart-ass so he will never shoot himself in the leg this way.

Please, help me understand how IT will look like a joke when the player he discovered (and 29 other teams past on) helps his team win games? This theroy that IT is somehow holding Lee back makes no sense. So if Isiah sits Frye (the player he drafted) in favor of Lee (the player he drafted), he looks bad? Huh? This argument would make more sense if Lee was drafted by Layden.

Heres the bottom line, I don't think Lee not starting is the resaon why were losing games. Losing the Net and Wiz games had nothig to do with Lee not getting the start. We just didn't make the plays at the end to secure victory (and Lee was on the court at end).

Isiah can juggle this lineup all he wants, the bottom line is we have a bunch of inconsistant players that wont be cured by starting Lee. This is an average/to below average team right now regardless of whether Lee starts or not.

Put it this way......Isiah drafted Frye at 8 and Lee at 29. And Lee is severely outplaying Frye.

For some reason Isiah decided to draft 2 guys that played the same position(or players he was going to play at the same position) in the same draft. Imagine if he had drafted Bynum/Granger/Green-guys that had a shot to go that high-and Lee at 29 and Nate(I preferred Jarrett Jack but I digress).

Imagine if we had a Bynum working behind Curry for two or three years to get seasoned. Then when Curry opts out of his contract, we have Bynum just waiting there to step into a lineup next to Lee. Or if we drafted Granger have a Curry-Lee-Granger lineup. I know it's hindsight, but it sort of shows a scatter shot way of doing things. Throw enough crap against a wall eventually some of it is gonna stick. Collect as many bigs as you can and and eventually at least ONE will pay off.

When your drafting that low (29) usually the M.O. is to take the best athlete available which Lee was according to Isiah and his staff.

Posted by bigbeast:

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by bigbeast:

Posted by arkrud:

Look at this from IT perspective.
Let’s say he played Lee 44-46 min (like after the Brawl)
It's not granted but very likely the tem will win most of the games and Lee will get monster recognition...
So how IT will looks like... Like a joke...
All his trades and most of the drafting will look irrelevant and stupid as the only player who really improved the team is a side product of his drafting and was never projected by IT like main acquisition.
IT is smart-ass so he will never shoot himself in the leg this way.

Please, help me understand how IT will look like a joke when the player he discovered (and 29 other teams past on) helps his team win games? This theroy that IT is somehow holding Lee back makes no sense. So if Isiah sits Frye (the player he drafted) in favor of Lee (the player he drafted), he looks bad? Huh? This argument would make more sense if Lee was drafted by Layden.

Heres the bottom line, I don't think Lee not starting is the resaon why were losing games. Losing the Net and Wiz games had nothig to do with Lee not getting the start. We just didn't make the plays at the end to secure victory (and Lee was on the court at end).

Isiah can juggle this lineup all he wants, the bottom line is we have a bunch of inconsistant players that wont be cured by starting Lee. This is an average/to below average team right now regardless of whether Lee starts or not.

Put it this way......Isiah drafted Frye at 8 and Lee at 29. And Lee is severely outplaying Frye.

For some reason Isiah decided to draft 2 guys that played the same position(or players he was going to play at the same position) in the same draft. Imagine if he had drafted Bynum/Granger/Green-guys that had a shot to go that high-and Lee at 29 and Nate(I preferred Jarrett Jack but I digress).

Imagine if we had a Bynum working behind Curry for two or three years to get seasoned. Then when Curry opts out of his contract, we have Bynum just waiting there to step into a lineup next to Lee. Or if we drafted Granger have a Curry-Lee-Granger lineup. I know it's hindsight, but it sort of shows a scatter shot way of doing things. Throw enough crap against a wall eventually some of it is gonna stick. Collect as many bigs as you can and and eventually at least ONE will pay off.

When your drafting that low (29) usually the M.O. is to take the best athlete available which Lee was according to Isiah and his staff.

Understood. However, it is not a good sign when the guy you picked 30th is outplaying te guy you picked 8th. Yea sure you get credit for drafting the guy at 30. But you also get the responsibility for possibly wasting a lotto pick.

Posted by Erniecat:

Heres the bottom line, I don't think Lee not starting is the resaon why were losing games. Losing the Net and Wiz games had nothig to do with Lee not getting the start. We just didn't make the plays at the end to secure victory (and Lee was on the court at end).

OK, here we go:

Lee played 22 minutes in the one-point loss to the Nets (with two personal fouls). He played 33 minutes in the one-point loss to the Wizards (with two personal fouls).

You will not be able to convince me that had Lee not played the 38 minutes he should be getting every night in both of those games the Knicks would not have won at least one of them, maybe both.

One of the many problmes with Lee not starting is that it is not that easy to get a player off the bench 38 minutes. To get him 38 minutes off the bench, you have to get him in the game five minutes into the first quarter and leave him in till halftime, and then get him in five minutes into the third quarter and leave him in till the end of the game.

The joke continues...