Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Solace:
Posted by Bonn1997:
After the KVH trade, Nazr was a more productive player than KVH or TT actually. That trade worked out fine, even though most of Isiah's don't work out.
I don't know where this Nazr played better than KVH myth comes from, but it's not based in reality. If you're comparing rebounds for a center vs. a small forward, then you have an invalid comparison to start with. Nazr was a 9.2 ppg, 7.7 rpg guy during 27 games in season 1 with the Knicks and then 10.9 ppg, 8.1 rpg in season 2 in 54 games. Over 81 games with the Knicks (about a season), he basically was a 10 ppg, 8 rpg guy. Meanwhile Van Horn had 16.4 ppg, 7.3 rpg on the Knicks, although I'll grant you he played a few more minutes than Nazr. Nonetheless, over 7 rpg for a small forward is near the top for rebounding for a small forward. Nazr's rebounding averages were slightly above average for a center. Meanwhile, Van Horn was a much better scorer and a good three point shooter. Both players were average, at best, on defense.
[Edited by - Solace on Jan 25 2008 9:24 PM]
I said *after* the trade, Nazr played the best of the three. I think your Van Horn stats are from before the trade. I'm more interested in the post-trade stats because KVH was aging a lot faster than Nazr.
So you don't think KVH's stats on the Knicks are of relevance? Did Keith really change that much from a few months on a different team? His stats only crumbled after an injury (I think?) the next season on Milwaukee. It was clear to me that his confidence was shot anyway and he never wanted to be on the Bucks. I think you can see this because he had a bit of a resurgence on Dallas, even though he was only getting 7th man minutes. Nazr was less than two years younger than Van Horn, which I don't think is a huge difference regardless. I think everyone assumes it was more because Nazr was unheard of until a few seasons before that.
Anyway, my premise is that had Van Horn stayed on the Knicks, his career would've continued to progress in a positive manner. To call it a good trade is ridiculous, based on the fact that none of the players involved have any value at this time.
The trade was an utter embrassment for Isiah Thomas. I agree that it wasn't Isiah's worst trade, though. But it may have had the worst timing of any trade in the last decade.
[Edited by - Solace on Jan 25 2008 10:13 PM]Wishing everyone well. I enjoyed posting here for a while, but as I matured I realized this forum isn't for me. We all evolve. Thanks for the memories everyone.
1/26/2008 4:52 AM