[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

ot - no kg to bulls b/c of extension?
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 2 of 2 ‹ Previous 1  2 
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
Solace
Posts: 30004
Alba Posts: 20
Joined: 10/30/2003
Member: #479
USA
9/29/2007  5:16 AM
I call bogus. This is another one of those made up rumors until proven otherwise.

As for Ben Wallace, reading some of the stuff above makes me question people's basketball knowledge. How can you legitimately say that Ben Wallace is a one-dimensional player? Come on now. Ridiculous. He may be overpaid, but if he is, it's not a huge overpay. This just reconfirms why we can't have rational discussions on this board. Half the board values points as 99% of the picture when there's a much wider picture. Now granted, Ben isn't going to improve any further than he's been in previous years; he's past his prime, but still valuable. That doesn't make him a bad player for the Bulls.

[Edited by - Solace on Sep 29 2007 05:17 AM]
The Knicks 2026 NBA Champions!
AUTOADVERT
Ira
Posts: 24695
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 8/14/2001
Member: #91
9/29/2007  6:15 AM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Ira:

That probably has to do with the rest of the team. Zach's +/- (9.7 and 4.0) and his Roland Rating (8.1) were very good.
http://www.82games.com/0607/0607POR.HTM

Zach isn't on a level of Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett who not only score well and rebound well, like Randolph, but they're good defensive players too. But Zach is a presence out there and he's certainly a big step up over Channing Frye.

What's your interpretation of our franchise player's stats in those two categories (on/off -2.0; Roland Rating 0.8)?

Let's also include his +/- production number of +2.0. When you add up his strengths and weaknesses on offense and defense, Curry is an average player.
Ira
Posts: 24695
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 8/14/2001
Member: #91
9/29/2007  6:20 AM
Posted by TrueBlue:
Posted by Ira:

That probably has to do with the rest of the team. Zach's +/- (9.7 and 4.0) and his Roland Rating (8.1) were very good.
http://www.82games.com/0607/0607POR.HTM

Zach isn't on a level of Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett who not only score well and rebound well, like Randolph, but they're good defensive players too. But Zach is a presence out there and he's certainly a big step up over Channing Frye.


Maybe if he concentrated more on the other side of the ball that could have been the difference in PDX winning a few more games. As usual with our fan base we back a player always using offensive statistics. And besides Zach's Rolands or whatever the crap other dubios statistics reveal aren't so good that it justifies chewing into Lee and THE SAVIOR's Jeffries minutes, cornering our Cornerstone, on top of taking on more albatross salary.

Maybe so. But there are two things to consider.
1) The strengths of his game are his ability to score and the ability to rebound, not the ability to play d. He concentrated on his strengths and, as the Rowland and +/- numbers show, he helped his team. If he were a stat whore, that wouldn't be the case.
2) When a team needs a player to be their dominant scorer, it's hard for that player to work as hard as other players on the defensive end. Randolph was his teams leading scorer and rebounder last season. That takes a lot out of a player.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
9/29/2007  7:23 AM
Posted by Ira:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Ira:

That probably has to do with the rest of the team. Zach's +/- (9.7 and 4.0) and his Roland Rating (8.1) were very good.
http://www.82games.com/0607/0607POR.HTM

Zach isn't on a level of Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett who not only score well and rebound well, like Randolph, but they're good defensive players too. But Zach is a presence out there and he's certainly a big step up over Channing Frye.

What's your interpretation of our franchise player's stats in those two categories (on/off -2.0; Roland Rating 0.8)?

Let's also include his +/- production number of +2.0. When you add up his strengths and weaknesses on offense and defense, Curry is an average player.
I agree 100% with that. Would you agree that it's a disaster to give up consecutive lottery picks, 2 additional picks, and 2 expiring contracts for a player who in his breakout season was just an "average player"?
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
9/29/2007  7:28 AM
Posted by Ira:
Posted by TrueBlue:
Posted by Ira:

That probably has to do with the rest of the team. Zach's +/- (9.7 and 4.0) and his Roland Rating (8.1) were very good.
http://www.82games.com/0607/0607POR.HTM

Zach isn't on a level of Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett who not only score well and rebound well, like Randolph, but they're good defensive players too. But Zach is a presence out there and he's certainly a big step up over Channing Frye.


Maybe if he concentrated more on the other side of the ball that could have been the difference in PDX winning a few more games. As usual with our fan base we back a player always using offensive statistics. And besides Zach's Rolands or whatever the crap other dubios statistics reveal aren't so good that it justifies chewing into Lee and THE SAVIOR's Jeffries minutes, cornering our Cornerstone, on top of taking on more albatross salary.

Maybe so. But there are two things to consider.
1) The strengths of his game are his ability to score and the ability to rebound, not the ability to play d. He concentrated on his strengths and, as the Rowland and +/- numbers show, he helped his team. If he were a stat whore, that wouldn't be the case.
2) When a team needs a player to be their dominant scorer, it's hard for that player to work as hard as other players on the defensive end. Randolph was his teams leading scorer and rebounder last season. That takes a lot out of a player.

I think Zach's a good player. I'm not disputing that. But he's NOT in top shape. If he lost 10 to 15 pounds of fat, maybe he'd be able to score and rebound AND play defense. There are some players in worse shape in the NBA, but that's no excuse for Zach.
TrueBlue
Posts: 29144
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 9/20/2006
Member: #1172
9/29/2007  1:33 PM
Posted by Ira:
Posted by TrueBlue:
Posted by Ira:

That probably has to do with the rest of the team. Zach's +/- (9.7 and 4.0) and his Roland Rating (8.1) were very good.
http://www.82games.com/0607/0607POR.HTM

Zach isn't on a level of Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett who not only score well and rebound well, like Randolph, but they're good defensive players too. But Zach is a presence out there and he's certainly a big step up over Channing Frye.


Maybe if he concentrated more on the other side of the ball that could have been the difference in PDX winning a few more games. As usual with our fan base we back a player always using offensive statistics. And besides Zach's Rolands or whatever the crap other dubios statistics reveal aren't so good that it justifies chewing into Lee and THE SAVIOR's Jeffries minutes, cornering our Cornerstone, on top of taking on more albatross salary.

Maybe so. But there are two things to consider.
1) The strengths of his game are his ability to score and the ability to rebound, not the ability to play d. He concentrated on his strengths and, as the Rowland and +/- numbers show, he helped his team. If he were a stat whore, that wouldn't be the case.
2) When a team needs a player to be their dominant scorer, it's hard for that player to work as hard as other players on the defensive end. Randolph was his teams leading scorer and rebounder last season. That takes a lot out of a player.



Want me to start listing good-to-great two way players during their career in their prime?
LMFAO @ the Bio [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephon_Marbury[/url]
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
9/29/2007  1:41 PM
Posted by TrueBlue:
Posted by Ira:
Posted by TrueBlue:
Posted by Ira:

That probably has to do with the rest of the team. Zach's +/- (9.7 and 4.0) and his Roland Rating (8.1) were very good.
http://www.82games.com/0607/0607POR.HTM

Zach isn't on a level of Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett who not only score well and rebound well, like Randolph, but they're good defensive players too. But Zach is a presence out there and he's certainly a big step up over Channing Frye.


Maybe if he concentrated more on the other side of the ball that could have been the difference in PDX winning a few more games. As usual with our fan base we back a player always using offensive statistics. And besides Zach's Rolands or whatever the crap other dubios statistics reveal aren't so good that it justifies chewing into Lee and THE SAVIOR's Jeffries minutes, cornering our Cornerstone, on top of taking on more albatross salary.

Maybe so. But there are two things to consider.
1) The strengths of his game are his ability to score and the ability to rebound, not the ability to play d. He concentrated on his strengths and, as the Rowland and +/- numbers show, he helped his team. If he were a stat whore, that wouldn't be the case.
2) When a team needs a player to be their dominant scorer, it's hard for that player to work as hard as other players on the defensive end. Randolph was his teams leading scorer and rebounder last season. That takes a lot out of a player.



Want me to start listing good-to-great two way players during their career in their prime?
Great response. There are so many such players that there's no need to even list them. It's simple: You get in TOP shape in the off-season and then you're PREPARED for intense, two-way effort during the season.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 09-29-2007 1:43 PM]
TrueBlue
Posts: 29144
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 9/20/2006
Member: #1172
9/29/2007  1:53 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by TrueBlue:
Posted by Ira:
Posted by TrueBlue:
Posted by Ira:

That probably has to do with the rest of the team. Zach's +/- (9.7 and 4.0) and his Roland Rating (8.1) were very good.
http://www.82games.com/0607/0607POR.HTM

Zach isn't on a level of Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett who not only score well and rebound well, like Randolph, but they're good defensive players too. But Zach is a presence out there and he's certainly a big step up over Channing Frye.


Maybe if he concentrated more on the other side of the ball that could have been the difference in PDX winning a few more games. As usual with our fan base we back a player always using offensive statistics. And besides Zach's Rolands or whatever the crap other dubios statistics reveal aren't so good that it justifies chewing into Lee and THE SAVIOR's Jeffries minutes, cornering our Cornerstone, on top of taking on more albatross salary.

Maybe so. But there are two things to consider.
1) The strengths of his game are his ability to score and the ability to rebound, not the ability to play d. He concentrated on his strengths and, as the Rowland and +/- numbers show, he helped his team. If he were a stat whore, that wouldn't be the case.
2) When a team needs a player to be their dominant scorer, it's hard for that player to work as hard as other players on the defensive end. Randolph was his teams leading scorer and rebounder last season. That takes a lot out of a player.



Want me to start listing good-to-great two way players during their career in their prime?
Great response. There are so many such players that there's no need to even list them. It's simple: You get in TOP shape in the off-season and then you're PREPARED for intense, two-way effort during the season.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 09-29-2007 1:43 PM]


We don't don't have 2-way thinking fans.

Who on our team is going to play defense? And will they consist of our best offensive players?

You look at every team that may be considered better than us there's only one team(Wash) who doesn't have defensive (a) stalwart(s).
LMFAO @ the Bio [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephon_Marbury[/url]
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
9/29/2007  3:16 PM
Posted by TrueBlue:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by TrueBlue:
Posted by Ira:
Posted by TrueBlue:
Posted by Ira:

That probably has to do with the rest of the team. Zach's +/- (9.7 and 4.0) and his Roland Rating (8.1) were very good.
http://www.82games.com/0607/0607POR.HTM

Zach isn't on a level of Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett who not only score well and rebound well, like Randolph, but they're good defensive players too. But Zach is a presence out there and he's certainly a big step up over Channing Frye.


Maybe if he concentrated more on the other side of the ball that could have been the difference in PDX winning a few more games. As usual with our fan base we back a player always using offensive statistics. And besides Zach's Rolands or whatever the crap other dubios statistics reveal aren't so good that it justifies chewing into Lee and THE SAVIOR's Jeffries minutes, cornering our Cornerstone, on top of taking on more albatross salary.

Maybe so. But there are two things to consider.
1) The strengths of his game are his ability to score and the ability to rebound, not the ability to play d. He concentrated on his strengths and, as the Rowland and +/- numbers show, he helped his team. If he were a stat whore, that wouldn't be the case.
2) When a team needs a player to be their dominant scorer, it's hard for that player to work as hard as other players on the defensive end. Randolph was his teams leading scorer and rebounder last season. That takes a lot out of a player.



Want me to start listing good-to-great two way players during their career in their prime?
Great response. There are so many such players that there's no need to even list them. It's simple: You get in TOP shape in the off-season and then you're PREPARED for intense, two-way effort during the season.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 09-29-2007 1:43 PM]


We don't don't have 2-way thinking fans.

Who on our team is going to play defense? And will they consist of our best offensive players?

You look at every team that may be considered better than us there's only one team(Wash) who doesn't have defensive (a) stalwart(s).
That's such a simple yet profoundly accurate statement.
Ira
Posts: 24695
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 8/14/2001
Member: #91
9/29/2007  4:27 PM
Bonn, I do agree that Isaiah gave up too much for Curry and I was very disappointed about that at the time of the trade. But it didn't turn out as badly as it looked at the time he made the deal - in terms of the players Chicago actually got.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
9/29/2007  4:39 PM
Posted by Ira:

Bonn, I do agree that Isaiah gave up too much for Curry and I was very disappointed about that at the time of the trade. But it didn't turn out as badly as it looked at the time he made the deal - in terms of the players Chicago actually got.
You're probably bright than I am because I actually supported the trade at the time. However, I don't care at all about what Chicago actually did get. I care about what we could have gotten.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 09-29-2007 4:39 PM]
TrueBlue
Posts: 29144
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 9/20/2006
Member: #1172
9/29/2007  5:04 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Ira:

Bonn, I do agree that Isaiah gave up too much for Curry and I was very disappointed about that at the time of the trade. But it didn't turn out as badly as it looked at the time he made the deal - in terms of the players Chicago actually got.
You're probably bright than I am because I actually supported the trade at the time. However, I don't care at all about what Chicago actually did get. I care about what we could have gotten.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 09-29-2007 4:39 PM]


Which may have been different than what Chicago actually picked. Not to mention possible salary relief pending other roster adjustments.
LMFAO @ the Bio [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephon_Marbury[/url]
Ira
Posts: 24695
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 8/14/2001
Member: #91
9/30/2007  5:17 AM
Posted by TrueBlue:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Ira:

Bonn, I do agree that Isaiah gave up too much for Curry and I was very disappointed about that at the time of the trade. But it didn't turn out as badly as it looked at the time he made the deal - in terms of the players Chicago actually got.
You're probably bright than I am because I actually supported the trade at the time. However, I don't care at all about what Chicago actually did get. I care about what we could have gotten.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 09-29-2007 4:39 PM]


Which may have been different than what Chicago actually picked. Not to mention possible salary relief pending other roster adjustments.

In that regard, I have to bring up the old addage that hindsight is 20/20. Isaiah is a very good drafter, but even the greatest of all time (Red Auerbach) made some serious mistakes. He picked Mel Counts with the last pick in the first round (I think it was around 1964). We got Willis Reed with the first pick in the second round. Joe Dumars picked Darko when Carmello, Wade and Bosch were available. I can bring up many more examples. Drafting isn't an exact science. It's not reasonable to assume that any gm would have taken the best player available with a given pick.
Solace
Posts: 30004
Alba Posts: 20
Joined: 10/30/2003
Member: #479
USA
9/30/2007  7:07 AM
Posted by Ira:
Posted by TrueBlue:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Ira:

Bonn, I do agree that Isaiah gave up too much for Curry and I was very disappointed about that at the time of the trade. But it didn't turn out as badly as it looked at the time he made the deal - in terms of the players Chicago actually got.
You're probably bright than I am because I actually supported the trade at the time. However, I don't care at all about what Chicago actually did get. I care about what we could have gotten.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 09-29-2007 4:39 PM]


Which may have been different than what Chicago actually picked. Not to mention possible salary relief pending other roster adjustments.

In that regard, I have to bring up the old addage that hindsight is 20/20. Isaiah is a very good drafter, but even the greatest of all time (Red Auerbach) made some serious mistakes. He picked Mel Counts with the last pick in the first round (I think it was around 1964). We got Willis Reed with the first pick in the second round. Joe Dumars picked Darko when Carmello, Wade and Bosch were available. I can bring up many more examples. Drafting isn't an exact science. It's not reasonable to assume that any gm would have taken the best player available with a given pick.

I believe the point he was making was that had we not traded for Eddy Curry, perhaps we do better than the #2 and the #9 that the Bulls got from us. That's not an unreasonable assumption. What if we came out with something like the #1, followed by the #2: Bargnani and Durant?
The Knicks 2026 NBA Champions!
Page 2 of 2 ‹ Previous 1  2 
« Reply To Topic
ot - no kg to bulls b/c of extension?
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy