If you guys want Curry to show more motivation and a killer instinct, just revoke his Pizza Hut frequent eater card.

The actual trade for EC was very very poor--not because we were getting EC--because Chicago was trying to give EC 20mm to retire and somehow got two lottery picks from us.

Well forget that part for a minute--that is done. Let's concentrate on EC--the guy is an unstoppable beast who shoots nearly 60%. He's not the smartest player and he does have some shortcomings in terms of intangibles and cardiovascular fitness. But the bottom line is IF IT can get some guys who can shoot the rock BETTER than 35% keep players like JEFFERIES off the floor[where does JJ's guy go on D--right over to double EC] than Curry is capable of scoring 25-26 a night at nearly 60% --if he can improve from within just a tad in terms of rebounding passing and shotblocking--we certainly can play through him as a franchise player--and NO ONE in the nBA can stop him

The KNICKS can stop him by playing guys who are OFFENSIVE liabilities because the guy who cant score is the guy is responsible for EC getting doubled


If people cant see how frikin good EC can be you are BLIND.

Posted by Bonn1997:

We don't have the assets to get any of the players you're talking about adding around Eddy and we're still gonna give up tons of points with him in the center of our defense. No other team is dumb enough to try to build around Eddy.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 05-21-2007 5:06 PM]

Eddy isn't the only reason we give up so many points. We give up those points because our perimeter defenders give up open 3's to the tune of 37.6% That's tied for 3rd worst in the league. That's just an avg. There are many games where we give up a higher % on 3's. Teams make an avg. of seven 3's a game. We need to shave two 3's off of that.

WHY don't we have the assets to get help for Eddy? We have to put things in perspective. The guys that are mentioned most often are HIGH salary guys like KG, JO and to a lesser extent Pau. There are only a few teams that are willing to take on that kind of salary. LA & NY are at the top of that list. Those team will also look to get something decent back. If you have a highly valued young player then teams will want that kid. ie. Chicago gets requests for Deng. Memphis, Indy and Minny are likely looking to rebuild and as a team we're willing and able to give up young players and a pick if necessary, in order to get a player. I don't that it's definitely gonna take an awful lot to get one of these guys, cuz the offers for them will be few. Other teams that are also building with youth won't want to take on older players making big dollars. IF Memphis, Indy and Minnys are serious about starting over they'll make a fair deal. Yeah we'll have to give in order to get, but I think we have enough to offer. If not then we just go with the current path of going with young players and developing them. We aren't in any rush.

Posted by Bonn1997:

We don't have the assets to get any of the players you're talking about adding around Eddy and we're still gonna give up tons of points with him in the center of our defense. No other team is dumb enough to try to build around Eddy.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 05-21-2007 5:06 PM]

Briggs mentioned getting players who shoot better than 35%. We don't have assets to get players that shoot over 35%?

There's pecimism and then theres living in a dream world. You are living in a dream world Bonn if you dont think the Knicks can add a guy who can shoot the 3.

Add Morris Almond to Q and Nate and there are 3 guys who will make defenses think twice about sending an extra man (or two) at big EC.

fact of the matter is its one of the deepest drafts of all-time and almond, seen to be a one-dimensional player from a small school, will most definitely fall to the 20s.

the knicks were 23rd in the NBA in 3pt%, their most talented offensive player is a big man who faces constant double teams, and they were in the top 10 in points per shot. that tells me that they are underutilizing their post players.

you are telling me with a straight face that adding a guy who shot 45% from downtown for the last 3 yrs in college while being the focus of the opponents' D (45%=same % kapono shot at UCLA; kapono FYI led the league in shooting % this yr) and focusing on players who shoot at a high % (ie not jared jeffries) will not help a) the development of eddy curry and fully maximize his potential and b) the team overall?

Posted by martin:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by BigSm00th:

Posted by Bonn1997:

We don't have the assets to get any of the players you're talking about adding around Eddy and we're still gonna give up tons of points with him in the center of our defense. No other team is dumb enough to try to build around Eddy.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 05-21-2007 5:06 PM]

Briggs mentioned getting players who shoot better than 35%. We don't have assets to get players that shoot over 35%?

There's pecimism and then theres living in a dream world. You are living in a dream world Bonn if you dont think the Knicks can add a guy who can shoot the 3.

Add Morris Almond to Q and Nate and there are 3 guys who will make defenses think twice about sending an extra man (or two) at big EC.

First, Briggs is wrong to think that all we need is a shooter. Second, 35% is an underestimate. We already have 35% shooters. That's below the league average. Third, sure you can get shooting specialists who have other severe weaknesses like Hubert Davis. If they were great shooters and didn't have those weaknesses, they wouldn't be available with our assets. I don't know anything about Almond but odds are that if he's a great shooter AND a very strong all around player, he'll be taken before the mid 20s.

jezz Bonn, you are reverting.

I don't think you will find Briggs saying that all we need is a shooter to fix the Knicks problems, but it SURE is an area of great need.

Also, I think the 35% was meant to suggest the 3-point area, and the Knicks as a team shoot about that average.

You don't think we have ANY assets to move up in the draft? We can buy a pick for $3M and then package the #23 and whatever else we buy? Or package Nate? Or Morris?

35% from 3 pt range is below average. The team needs major changes. I don't think moving up from 23 to 16 is going to be cause for celebration. I never said we have no assets. Just that we have the worst assets in the league. If we package Nate, then we need to get two shooters because we're losing our best shooter.