Posted by blueNorange:

actually, i'm enjoying every itty bit of this. i want to see Isiah fail and get fired.

and i'm not that bad becuase i didn't set my expectations real high.

once Isiah is gone the new GM will get rid of Crawful, Curry, and Marbury and the Knicks will be heading into the right direction.

it's sad that i was calling for Isiah's head 2 years ago on another forum and was labeled a hater ... i just knew what was gonna happen.

Larry Brown WAS right, he knew this was gonna happen. And why keep Curry?? he'll never get it. Randolph is the one you keep because he rebounds as well as scoring.

I love Lee and Balkman but if the only way you get rid of the big contracts is if you involved them, then you do the trade for the betterment of the future.

[Edited by - bluenorange on 11-18-2007 01:58 AM]

I just about agree 100% with you.

Our future pg is in Portland Sergio Rodriguez.

Get rid of isiah and we can pickup some international euro talent and get with the times.

Posted by SupremeCommander:

Posted by Vmart:

Posted by SupremeCommander:

When the price was as high as Isiah paid, you expect Curry to transform the Knicks into a team like the Nets, Suns, Spurs or Mavs... or at least to a bottom tier playoff team. He's better than average for sure, but he's also a reminder of a monumental failure.

I'd just assume clean house and tank.

Failure what is failure if you look at that way then Patrick Ewing would be a reminder of the NYK monumental failure that got them the number one overall pick. Please the deal is done and going back and continuously rehashing a deal you can never take back is only going to mess your think about the team and make your judgment biased. Instead I see two draft picks that aren't going to amount to much for the Bulls.

Sure, it is a sunk cost. I agree there. However, let's not pretend like there aren't upgrades to Curry available. There certainly are.

As for the draft picks the Bulls selected, who's to say the Knicks would have taken the same player? Tyrus Thomas may have been on the team, so may have been LaMarcus Aldridge. What about Brandon Roy? Or Rudy Gay? Honestly, I'd rather have Roy or Gay than Eddy Curry, regardless of the whole position thing and would definitely rather have LaMarcus.

(edit:) and that's just looking at one aspect of the trade. Maybe its unfair to compare him to the price paid to acquire him, but how else am I suppose to evaluate what his worth should be to the franchise?

[Edited by - supremecommander on 11-18-2007 1:54 PM]

Pat Ewing struggled in the begin with the Knicks why because the team was devoid of talent around him. Well I feel the same way about this team a few bright spots and the rest is a s bad as Pat Ewing had it if not worse. Give Curry a chance with better cast and you will see his value. Don't kick the man out before giving him talent to work with. Why are you guys so quick to dump a center who is productive on the offensive side of the ball. The NYK problem is the perimeter players and it will continue to be a problem for the KNicks because they are all inconsistent shooters. There is not one guy who comes close to shooting 45% on the season. Currry is basically surrounded by below 40% shooters and this year the shooting has been especially bad something around 37% by the perimeter shooters.

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by GKFv2:

Keep Curry? LOL, the guy is one of the main reasons we are losing. He is an epic failure of the Isiah regime.

I have a difference of opinion on Curry. I know Curry can give me 24-8-60% in the right circumstance and while those are just *stats*--it's what you put around him that make those numbers and his play great. He is only 24--he was *dominant at times last year--he DID not come in in the same physical shape and he needs to do that. I do not think Zach Randolph was the correct piece to put next to him. Right now I believe Zach is under 40% shooting for the year which--to me is unacceptable from a frontcourt player even if he is grabbing rebounds. I would personally keep Curry and look into the market for Zach--there has to be a reasonable one.

I have a serious problem with this reasoning when you already factor what we've given up to get him. Now you're talking about constantly revamping and tweaking this roster to acommadate all his deficiencies. He should be the one making everyone else better otherwise why give up so much to get him? Totally backwards thinking and that's why we're where we are today. EY should be the reason other players get big contracts not the reason they get traded.

EC is not the problem. The solution to fixing this thing is at the 1-2-3 positions. I don't think we need Randolph but certainly Im not giving him away--he's worth a premium package. We need a guy who will come in and do this. I'm not a Zach hater--he's avery good NBA player but I prefer to go with Curry and Lee[find a suitable third guy who blocks shots/sets picks rebounds etc...] and revamp the guards and wings. Lee and Curry are 24? We have the time to get things right over the next two years.

The current blueprint for most successful teams in the NBA is the following:

C: Shotblocker
PF: Star (most important position in NBA)
SF: Versatile SF
SG: Shooter
PG: Star (2nd most important position)

Of course positions are interchangable.

But it mostly holds true.


Examples:

Spurs, Suns, Mavs, Cavs(Hughes when healthy), Boston, etc, etc.