IF you call leading your team in your senior year to a state basketball championship and finishing number 2 to Jared Jeffries as Mister Indiana Basketball- as doing nothing - I guess your right. Personally - I haven;t come close- but perhaps you have or better yet - superseded that. I love itwhen NBA players post incognito on this site.

Being drafted in at 20 years old in the first round 2001 and getting a mega -gajillion contract by 2004 -was of course a sure sign that he was a one hit wonder.

Posted by TMS:

a frontcourt of Zach & Curry is not going to work... neither one of them wants to defend anyone in the paint... we need to get rid of 1 & replace him w/a defensive minded big who can block a few shots... & since neither of them are happy coming off the bench, it makes all the sense in the world to hold onto David Lee.

When a NBA GM is willing to part with a shot-blocking center for Curry or Zach then by all means. But worse comes to worse and the Knicks do the unthinkable, and not make any trades there's always the possibility of finding a center in the draft who could fill the void. I just don't feel comofortable adding someone like Dalembert who has a suspect work ethic and has been known to take nights off.

At this point we all can acknowledge this roster is majorly f*ed up but why continue to exacerbate it so you can get what another one dimensional player. Of course I'm assuming that the Knicks don't have the pieces to get Camby, Stoudamire, Howard, Smith, or Chandler. But who knows

VDesai,

What did you think of my proposal to use Marbury's expiring next season to move one of our wasted contracts like James?

[Edited by - bitty41 on 01-19-2008 11:15 AM]

VDesai,

What did you think of my proposal to use Marbury's expiring next season to move one of our wasted contracts like James?

Bitty- problem is that's roughly 20-25 mil in contracts. We'd have to take on an expensive player or multiple expensive players that might not be of high quality. However, since we cannot get under the cap next year, it might make sense to package them for contracts that expire in 2010-2011 or the first year we can get close to under.

There are a handful of NBA players that would fit that description- three prominent ones that do, and which their teams will look to trade are Shaq, McGrady and Jermaine O'Neal. And they all could save roughly $15 mil and get under the cap a year early by making that deal. I would trade Jefferies instead of James, who's deal runs longer and would actually save us 6 mil in that 2010-2011 offseason which is the first realistic offseason where we could get under.

Option 2 is let Marbury expire and trade Randolph, Curry, Craw for expiring deals or some kind of money relief to get closer to the cap quicker.

I basically see it as two strategies- however, in 2010, I believe our pick goes unprotetcted to Utah- so it might help to be more competetive before then.

only 2 things need to be done:

1. fire isiah
2. hire a new guy and give him carte blanche

and that's it. whatever the new guy wants to do, then let him do it and see what happens.

Shoot him

Posted by TMS:

Posted by bitty41:

TMS,

That was my whole point I just don't see a big name player or they player we need coming back to us in a trade that involes pretty much any of our players. Trading either Curry or Zach especially taking into consideration the money involved most likely the only thing we would be doing is creating different sort of problems instead actually solving any problems. If that makes sense. Sometimes its better to stick with the devil you know. At least then you know what your dealing with and can possibly address but as mentioned here with Zach when you go out there and bring in a new guy then its back to the drawing board.

Look I have no problem proposing hypotheticals but its just that most of these proposed trades are no better then what Isiah's been doing and in cases worse.

i don't agree w/that... the trades most people propose are moves to try & cut longterm payroll, something that Isiah has never done since he got here... his way of doing things has clearly not worked... isn't it time to try a different strategy?

Bringing in Vince Carter is a different strategy, bringing Bobby Simmons, Dan Gadzuric, Charlie V is a different strategy? Oh you mean that horrible trade someone proposed for Kwame Brown that just ranks in the stupid category b/c now your trading for absolutely no talent while creating a big gaping whole in your roster. Like I said why not just let Marbs and Malik's contracts expire or package them next season? Thats a much different strategy waiting and making no risky moves.

[Edited by - bitty41 on 01-20-2008 12:15 PM]

Posted by TMS:

there's plenty of opposition on this forum against the idea to bring in Vince Carter... it would be a lateral move & do nothing to improve this team... the MIL trade idea was to unload Zach's contract & to add players that are more manageable & likely more tradeable going forward... the Kwame Brown idea was to unload longterm salary & to add a 1st round pick, 2 things that this team needs to look to do going forward in order to rebuild the mess Isiah's made of this roster... yes, that is a different strategy... unloading bloated contracts & gaining some semblence of cap flexibility is something this franchise has not been concerned with for the past decade, & you see the results.

& ur confusing me here... on 1 hand u say no more stupid trade proposals & on the other you're suggesting we wait til next year when Marbs & Malik's contracts become expiring so you can package them in a trade... so which is it? do we stand pat & do nothing or do we look to make some roster moves in order to try & fix this mess? what constitutes a "risky move" in your mind? did you not think trading for Zach & that unbelievably horrible contract of his to be a risky move on Isiah's part?

Be warned I'm going to rant a bit here:

What is so freaking wrong with waiting until the end of the season to make anymore moves? Do you really want to see another Steve Francis for Ariza deal being made how many times before Knick fans learn that a little just a tiny bit of patience could go a long way. Again I repeat removing Curry or Zach basically takes you back to the drawing board and how many times are we going to do this before it sinks into someone's thick skull that reinventing your roster year after year isn't a recipe for a success? So what you shave off Zach's contract your going to need a player to fill that void and there is that always unpredictable variable of the next guy coming here and just completley sucking which is known to happen.


What is so confusing I am saying see where the team is at the end of the season. Address the big liabilities first which IMO is the small forward position. Maybe this can be addressed in the draft thus there would be no need to AGAIN drop money on some random player. Worse comes to worse which was my whole point you can always fall back on Malik's or Marb's expiring contract if things look really bleak next season.

I generally agree with the sentiment, and have felt that way for a long time. I think you need to give things time to work, especially with young players. Also, it sure seems like every trade gives us less flexibility.

OTOH, if you have a chance to do something like what Danny Ainge did up in Boston, you have to go for it.