The word on Craw was he might work for D'Antoni. With Brown he did well, so they hoped with a good coach he would respond. I disagree with this as most likely, but I'm just saying they have to have some hope. He is on the roster, has talent and a good head on his shoulders off of the court. He's played for a gazillion coaches, so they have to have some hope he would respond. Of course, the other side of things is that they also need him to play well so they can move his deal.
Crawford was benched for the first half of LB season because he was so awful. He was much better Isiah year 1.
For some reason, playing Crawford to increase his value is a sound rationale, but playing Marbury who is waaay better than crawford and has a huge expiring to increase his value is not.
You're arguing against yourself.
How is this "rationalizing" in a negative sense? But since YOU one FAN have decided this is the case, there is no other good answer? How come you aren't GM for an NBA team if you know more than these guys who have proven track records of success?
Since I am one guy my opinion is worth less than the other who are reasoning through hope goggles in lock step with every uttereance of the coach and GM? Have you heard of herds or lemmings? I prefer not to be part of a herd or a lemming.
Your entire "how come you aren't an NBA GM" is the most specious argument possible. This is an internet board where we put forth our opinions. I would hope you are better than that statement.
You want to agree with everything a GM says or does? Silly. I'll remind you of that silly argument the moment you disagree with anything Walsh or D'Antoni does.
Every single player on the team has "potential" with the team, and potential to be moved. This is just basic assessment that every manager in any job that exists. Sitting Crawford does what exactly for the Knicks when his deal goes past this season, and past 2010, making $10+ mil.
Again, why doesn't this same reasoning apply to Marbury? Please try to keep your reasoning models consistent within the same post.
You want to do what exactly with him then? Bench him for a few years? What?
Play Crawford limited minutes off the bench which is the proper way to utilize him. hat is exactly what I want to do with him? How about you? let me guess: Whatever D'Antoni or Walsh tell me to think!
On Steph, go read the multiple posts explaining why he was played in pre-season. I just posted one. It's really not that difficult to grasp as a strategy. I can't say 100% this is what was the case, but it makes sense of a situation that otherwise does not. That also isn't "rationalizing" unless, again, you think Walsh and D'Antoni that was a devious plan to only confuse and frustrate Knick fans. Of course, that's ridiculous and irrationale, but it's the Knicks so therefore some fans will believe it, rather than look at another perspective.
You provided a reason? You mean this?
"Playing him during pre-season was what some might think is the mistake, but the focus was so much on how things started, that they must have calculated..."That is not even a sentence let alone a reason. Please, instead of being rude and asking me to read someone else's post to fill in your lack of an explanation, come back with a real explanation, that makes sense to explain why Marbury was played half the game in preseason.
Again, what explanation can you provide for the decision then?
They were stupid. Because there is no good explanation. The flaw here is that you insist there must have been a good reason.
You admit, because it looks like the same as Isiah it therefore must be the same, but read between the lines, my friend, it's right there, and has been stated.
A lot of what you keep asking is basically because the Knicks have been dealt a crap hand.
They HAVE to up the value of many players, and/or see if they can develop them in D'Antoni's system. That, in summary, is the easiest explanation one can give for why the guys many (including the Knicks management) don't really like are playing.
Jeffries has a deal that is going to be hard to move, and goes past 2010, so they have to see if he can find a way to do well with D'Antoni, especially if any deals that are available involving Jared are not good from their perspective.
Again, all of this they have to play him to up his value applies to everyone but Marbury who has the most intrinsic value because of his ability and contract.
And talking about the crap hand is rationalizing. Isiah was dealt a crap hand. So was the GM that preceded him. Sorry, don't take it too personally, but rationalizing it is.
For Duhon, he's signed for 2 years, man, and is considered a steady PG. Nate could run the team, but they obviously wanted some stability at the PG, which is where it almost always makes sense. Maybe he develops with some of the players and shows enough to keep him on. Meanwhile, guys like Nate and Mardy see what a more serious on court player at guard does, and could learn.
This would make sense if Duhon were more than a mediocre to decent backup PG. Steady but not very good. That is the book on him. And learning from Duhon while he plays major minutes certainly doesn't jibe with a true rebuilding process. It isn't like they are watching Mark price operate. So it is rationalizing.
D'Antoni said it very clearly. The team is on two paths.
1) Develop players and see what they have
2) Develop a winning culture/team
I think every single move has been directed at that specifically.
What D'Antoni said very clearly to me is that we have no clear direction. If you have 2 directions then you have no direction. You don't drive on 2 roads at once. His explanation is sophistry.
This Marbury situation will not be here forever, and eventually will pass. They had to consider the worst case scenario, which is somewhat happening, but they know either way Steph is absolutely 100% gone next year no matter what. I think they trust D'Antoni's rep with players enough that they can get themselves back together as the season wears on.
They created the scenario. Nobody to blame but Walsh and D'Antoni!
I mean all of this fits into what we know about D'Antoni and Walsh, as well as players.
How?
The performance on the court is an issue, but I think it will take more than 3 games to cause a disastrous situation.
Who said it is a disastrous situation? They just have to start making smart moves. I am free to start evaluating from game 1. So far, not so good. I think you see it too but you keep repeating to yourself: "They know what they are doing..."
***
By the way, if you have any question as to why my tone has been lass than cordial, it is because you have been rude. Go back and read your posts.
oohah
