Posted by SupremeCommander:

I just don't see the logical connection here...

The better player deserves to play and you can't assume a trade.

Posted by bobs3304:

Posted by SupremeCommander:

I just don't see the logical connection here...

The better player deserves to play and you can't assume a trade.

Yup, until he spits in our coach's face, or assaults a hooker, or starts alienating his teammates....AGAIN.


You've obviously thought this one through. Don't you realize by now that playing around with guys like Zach Randolph is risky?

Just look what Cassell and Spree did in Minnesota after only ONE year...

Fair enough points. Randolph is a risk for off-the-court factors. I'd say Curry is a risk for on-the-court factors, because he just isn't as good as Randolph. But I also would argue there are off-the court issues associated with Curry. Even disregarding the heart issue, there is still the fact that basketball is not his passion. Gymnastics is. People make compromises between what they love and what gets them Bentleys and mansions. Hell, I'd probably do the same thing. but I want to build my team with ballers, not guys who just do what they do because the felt forced or obligated to.

Pick your poison, but I'll take my chances with a guy who consistently ranks among the best in PER, whereas Curry is just a scorer (neither option is ideal for me, btw). My point is this isn't a clean cut issue here, especially because you are assuming that trades are possible. Without access to recorded conversations or legitimate sources, you cannot make that claim and claim it to be logical. It is speculation.

To me, the logical conclusion is that in the age of the PF/C, David Lee and Zach Randolph should both start because they are our best players. A platoon of Balkman/QRich isn't ideal, but it's not terrible either. Crawford is the team's best guard when looking at the numbers. People hate his inconsistency, but objectively, he's the team's best play maker and his assist totals--even from last year--were great. The one aspect of his game that IS consistent is his ability to distribute the ball, as evidenced by leading the team in assists close to a 1/3 of the games he played while playing the off-guard. Amazing. And, while I hate him, Stephon Marbury is doing a great job of protecting the rock SO FAR.

All of this admittedly comes with an asterisk, as I haven't watched the team play. I'm a numbers guy though, and all the indicators point to the LOGICAL team dynamic to be: Marbs, Craw, QRich/Balkman, Lee, Randolph... especially because YOU CANNOT ASSUME A TRADE.

Posted by bobs3304:

I'm a performance guy 1st, numbers guy 2nd.

Shane Battier is one of the best role players in the league and only put up 10 and 5 last season.

Bruce Bowen is a perennial DPOY candidate and only puts up like 8 and 4.


I've played ball since I was a little kid. Been watching since a tottler.

The point is is that you can't have a team full of scorers. Every guy wants his shot, and will rush them just to get touches (see Curry and Randolph).

Every great team needs different breeds of players. A team by definition is a collection of players working toward the same goal.

This "team" is built on a collection of players who care more about getting "theirs" than winning...

We're actually thinking along the same lines then. I can ball, I just was never good enough to make a living doing it. Since then, I've become a fan of numbers and would say I can interpret them. I agree with this post. Given the current roster, I think each player in my proposal maximizes other aspects of the game, as well.

Positives of each player, removing offense:
Marbury: ball protection
Crawford: distribution
QRich: defense
Balkman: defense, hustle
Lee: rebounding, hustle
Randolph: Rebounding
Curry: nothing.

Posted by bobs3304:

^ True, but think about when you're playing a pickup game right.

And let's say it was 4 on 4 before you got there, and the "leader" of that bunch was some yoohoo hotshot who thinks he's great and dominates the huddle.

You know what I mean? A real .90 caliber A-hole. Sure he's talented, but he's killing the "team" vibe.


And you can't help but not feel "excited" while you're playing the game. B/c it's not all for one and one for all. It's sort of - the 4 musketeers and 1 giant deusche.


It causes dissention. Guys have less fun. They hustle less. It becomes more business than pleasure.


I've been there. I'm sure you have.


THAT'S Stephon Marbury and Zach Randolph throught their careers. And guys don't just change permanently...