Posted by TMS:

Posted by djsunyc:

Posted by sebstar:

Wow, now that you guys mention this, am I the only one that thinks that Curry would be money in San Antonio. I'm talking purely from their perspective. Other guys would be able to cover for his deficiencies, Popovich would have him sweating Dr. Pepper and they would in turn have a low post offensive force to marry alongside Duncan. Plus they obviously wouldnt have to break up the big three to get him

Could really re-correct that franchise. I would seriously investigate it if I were them.

What would we get in return?

spurs have zero assets to trade outside of tiaggo splitter who looks to remain overseas for another 3 years.

i'll take an empty bag of cheetohs as long as someone takes his contract off our books.

Posted by fishmike:

allow me to play devil's advocate

1) He just said he didnt like it, and came from a team where there was more support. Also he was asked.. all he did was not lie

2) Did anyone on that team? He played hard, he hit the boards, he did what the coached was asked. Did Zach give less effort than anyone on that team?

3) What fights with Isiah? was Zach's role ever clearly defined? Isiah traded for him. Isiah brought him in here... did Isiah ever say "here's my plan for you..." ????

Posted by fishmike:

Zach can complain about anything. He showed up and did what was asked about him. So what if they deserved it.. does that mean Zach has to like it? Should he pretend to like it?

When a reporter says "Zach.. are the boos distracting??
He's going to speak his mind, and its going to get printed. He still went out and played hard (by Knick standards) the next day. I dont see the big deal. He didnt quit, get suspended, punch anyone or throw a towel in anyone's face.

It must have sucked.. really sucked to be a Knick last year. For a guy with past troubles in that environment I think he behaved admirably.

Not saying I want him here.. just that he didnt do anything to damage his rep worse than it was

Posted by fishmike:

Posted by djsunyc:

Posted by fishmike:

Zach can complain about anything. He showed up and did what was asked about him. So what if they deserved it.. does that mean Zach has to like it? Should he pretend to like it?

When a reporter says "Zach.. are the boos distracting??
He's going to speak his mind, and its going to get printed. He still went out and played hard (by Knick standards) the next day. I dont see the big deal. He didnt quit, get suspended, punch anyone or throw a towel in anyone's face.

It must have sucked.. really sucked to be a Knick last year. For a guy with past troubles in that environment I think he behaved admirably.

Not saying I want him here.. just that he didnt do anything to damage his rep worse than it was

one thing tho, zach had many undisclosed leaves of absences from the team last season. what were those about?

At least one was a funeral (uncle?). I think the other time he was hurt and off getting examined or some such. Look.. its certainly possible that Zach had issues we didnt hear of, but everytime Marbury pissed on the toilet seat and didnt clean it up it was in the Post so I am working under the assumption that anything major w/ Zach would have leaked one way or another. Also Zach isnt exactly the quiet type. If he was banished or suspended dont you see his mouth going on about that?

zach may be a misunderstood soul...but forget about the isiah year. portland, run by two class guys in pritchard and nate couldn't wait to get rid of him...and that was a pure rebuilding situation. similar to where the knicks are now.

if d'alsh thinks they can work with him, then he'll be a knick...but i have a strong feeling that he'll only be a knick b/c nobody else wants him.

[Edited by - djsunyc on 06-20-2008 2:00 PM]

Posted by djsunyc:

Posted by fishmike:

Posted by djsunyc:

Posted by fishmike:

Zach can complain about anything. He showed up and did what was asked about him. So what if they deserved it.. does that mean Zach has to like it? Should he pretend to like it?

When a reporter says "Zach.. are the boos distracting??
He's going to speak his mind, and its going to get printed. He still went out and played hard (by Knick standards) the next day. I dont see the big deal. He didnt quit, get suspended, punch anyone or throw a towel in anyone's face.

It must have sucked.. really sucked to be a Knick last year. For a guy with past troubles in that environment I think he behaved admirably.

Not saying I want him here.. just that he didnt do anything to damage his rep worse than it was

one thing tho, zach had many undisclosed leaves of absences from the team last season. what were those about?

At least one was a funeral (uncle?). I think the other time he was hurt and off getting examined or some such. Look.. its certainly possible that Zach had issues we didnt hear of, but everytime Marbury pissed on the toilet seat and didnt clean it up it was in the Post so I am working under the assumption that anything major w/ Zach would have leaked one way or another. Also Zach isnt exactly the quiet type. If he was banished or suspended dont you see his mouth going on about that?

zach may be a misunderstood soul...but forget about the isiah year. portland, run by two class guys in pritchard and nate couldn't wait to get rid of him...and that was a pure rebuilding situation. similar to where the knicks are now.

if d'alsh thinks they can work with him, then he'll be a knick...but i have a strong feeling that he'll only be a knick b/c nobody else wants him.

[Edited by - djsunyc on 06-20-2008 2:00 PM]

DJ

GM have unloaded way more talented guys for various reasons. I think most GM particularly of young teams when they have huge contract on the payroll there going to try to unload even if he's an upstanding all around great guy if there going in the direction of rebuilding. Right now almost everyone on the Knick's roster has decent to downright horrible trade value. So I think some patience needs to be exercised otherwise we could just end up with even more cluster****s.

For Zach its not of him remaining here or whatnot because clearly something needs to give.