Posted by MS:

The organization is the biggest joke in all sports right now and people are worried about taking minutes away from a guy that shots 40% and plays no defense. This illusion that we have good players on this roster is getting a little tiresome. We have young impressionable talent that could be corrupted by a lack of professionalism.

And Marbury killed any trade value he had after the season by his mental lapses. I would rather have Balkman play the two than crawford, the team would be much better off.

I think sometimes you get lost in your own hyperbole. What is it with you and Crawford? Wouldnt you rather see Crawford's obvious talent harnessed, and (hopefully) ultimately realized here, rather than somewhere else? Crawford is still relatively young, has a good head on his shoulders, and can flat out ball...why jettison him. The team nosedived without him, and we have yet to see how well he can produce with two legitimate low post threats. Houston, the man you are idealizing, had just as many warts as a player and as a man. At least Crawford wants to play here.

IF the Knicks can clear a roster spot without sacrificing an important player for the future and IF Houston can play, then I don't see a problem with taking a chance on him. I suspect that he would be a good presence in the Locker room. Although I hope he doesn't bring that stupid prayer circle back with him.

I think we could use him back. He was gimpy when he came back the first time and had a few nice shooting games. He's had a lot of time off now and I think he give you 18-20 minutes a night. He'd add a consistent shooting presence which we don't have. Too many guys run hot and cold.

[Edited by - VDesai on 09-24-2007 12:06 PM]

Posted by VDesai:

I think we could use him back. He was gimpy when he came back the first time and had a few nice shooting games. He's had a lot of time off now and I think he give you 18-20 minutes a night. He'd add a consistent shooting presence which we don't have. Too many guys run hot and cold.

[Edited by - VDesai on 09-24-2007 12:06 PM]

I guess you dont remember those long 2-11 shooting nights we used to labor through with Allan. Nevertheless, I think bringing the guy back is a good idea. As you pointed out, even after the surgery he still had good shooting outings. And we absolutely have a need for more shooting. When Jamal was off we pretty much called it a night last season. Q cant be depended on regularly so we do need at least one more shooter, preferably two (Nichols and Houston).

Nixluva, it's not a matter of good guys and bringing one in, although it is a nice thing. It's a matter of all of this. First off, obviously we need shooting, but as Bip pointed out, we need someone who can teach guys how to handle certain situations. Do you remember, Nixluva, how we couldn't win anything after a 2 game streak, or a 3 game streak? We did NOT know how to handle success, and even at times, got ****y after winning a couple of games. Even Isiah did, and he of all people, a 2 time champion, should know not to be like that. We need a presence to teach EVERYONE, not just Nate. I'm talking about everyone, from Nate and Crawfish, to Marbury, to Eddie Curry and Zach. NONE of these guys have experienced winning seasons, b/c QUentin going through 1, and Malik, and Marbury with a couple of first round exits.

It's like Allan says himself, these little things can make us really good, but we just can't seem to find them. That, and guys HAVE to play hard on defense ALL the time.

Nix I have to echo what Allanfan said. This has nothing to do with guys being good or bad guys. Has nothing to do with anything but us being a young team. Guys that are in their 5, 7, 10 years of their careers without winning. They need a leader, leaders to teach them the way. To show them how to respond to adversity and success. Those frustrating streaks last year was a direct result of this. No matter how good a guy Curry may be, it's difficult to learn this on his own. As a coach, I KNOW THIS TO BE FACT.

First of all Allan isn't a final step. I keep saying over and over that we need MORE GUYS LIKE MALIK. Allan is just another guy. Why bog your bench down with lazy guys like JJ and redundant guys like JJ2 when you can fill those spots with a successful vet? Why pay a role player for 5 years when you can fill that spot with a future coach. Why have 4 capable guys at one spot when you can have two and fill a spot with a proven vet.

I will say it again. This isn't about adding Allan so he can put us over the top. This isn't about some tangible result. This is about surrounding our young guys with vets that are proven winners, hard workers and have team first attitudes.

Now about the comparison to Chicago.

1.) Skiles and Paxson both have said that they purposefully targeted stars from winning programs to speed up the learning process. They then went out and targeted one of the leaders from a championship squad to fill their center spot, teach the youth, and bring in more of a winning atmosphere. This was done intentionally. It is something we should be doing and will be doing when we finally start to win. Chicago's actions are no different than what I've been calling for, for 5 or 6 years now. So thanks for the example

2.) We also know that in order for Chicago to get over the hump they will have to target another vet by trading some of their youth. They can win without this step but we know it will be a long process.

Now again, this is not a slap at our guys but it is reality. Our corp group has not won in the NBA. Our leader has always pointed to his teammates as the reason behind our losing. Our PF has been in trouble with the law. Our center has had issues with being in shape. Our most talented 2 guard is still learning the position 7 years in. I'm not saying that this team can't figure it out and mesh one day, but why leave that to chance? What's the harm in giving these guys every tool possible? We know for a fact that Eddie Curry would develop quicker if he had spent his first 5 years behind Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem or Patrick. I dare anyone to argue this. So why are we so hesitant to adopt these types of practices?

[Edited by - bippity10 on 24-09-2007 3:40 PM]

Good point Allanfan. The fact that we have guys that are only receptive to ideas that they agree with, and vets that they deem to be successful is part of the problem. All the more reason to go out and get the vets we are talking about.

There is a reason why teams rebuild for so long while other GM's can turn it around in a couple years. GM's fall in love with potential. They target guys over and over who can be good if.........They forget that these guys need help. They need to be shown the way. For some reason we don't think it's important. I guess as long as JJ gets paid, and Steve Francis gets paid and we win 33 games it's all good.

It just bothers me that Nichols isn't a given and a guy like HOuston who is available doesn't seem to be an option when both are perfect for the current roster. At some point we have to put ourselves in position to make that leap. It all comes down to one thing again. If Zach and Curry "get it" all this talk is moot, everything is roses. If they don't. Where are we? We need to surround these guys with vets to give us a better chance of not falling back into Bolivian(feels like old times)