Posted by subzero0:

Posted by BasketballJones:

Well, we all knew at the time (I think) that trading Randolph and Crawford would make the team worse - the Knicks were not doing that badly at the time, as I recall. I don't think the trade was done to bring in better talent or even better citizens. I thought it all had to do with 2010.

Now, I guess we could argue the merits of the whole 2010 plan, but at least it is a plan, and we should keep it in mind when evaluating Walsh's moves.

So let me get your logic straight. Your saying that by knowingly making the team worse we will look better in the eyes of the free agents we are trying to attract? My next question, WHAT THE HELL WORLD YOU LIVE IN MAN??

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by subzero0:

Posted by BasketballJones:

Well, we all knew at the time (I think) that trading Randolph and Crawford would make the team worse - the Knicks were not doing that badly at the time, as I recall. I don't think the trade was done to bring in better talent or even better citizens. I thought it all had to do with 2010.

Now, I guess we could argue the merits of the whole 2010 plan, but at least it is a plan, and we should keep it in mind when evaluating Walsh's moves.

So let me get your logic straight. Your saying that by knowingly making the team worse we will look better in the eyes of the free agents we are trying to attract? My next question, WHAT THE HELL WORLD YOU LIVE IN MAN??

Without unloading Zach's contract we'd have no money to offer FA's. Which is worse, difficulty attracting FA's, or the impossibility of signing them?

Unless we get Lebron James we wont get a player better than Zach

Posted by tkf:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by subzero0:

Posted by BasketballJones:

Well, we all knew at the time (I think) that trading Randolph and Crawford would make the team worse - the Knicks were not doing that badly at the time, as I recall. I don't think the trade was done to bring in better talent or even better citizens. I thought it all had to do with 2010.

Now, I guess we could argue the merits of the whole 2010 plan, but at least it is a plan, and we should keep it in mind when evaluating Walsh's moves.

So let me get your logic straight. Your saying that by knowingly making the team worse we will look better in the eyes of the free agents we are trying to attract? My next question, WHAT THE HELL WORLD YOU LIVE IN MAN??

Without unloading Zach's contract we'd have no money to offer FA's. Which is worse, difficulty attracting FA's, or the impossibility of signing them?

blue seats for some of the posters, that answer depends on which situation we are in... All you have to do is pick the opposite.. if zach were here, he would be the same selfish chucker who doesn't defend and is killing our cap... He is gone, so now it was a mistake because the premier FA's are not leaving their teams.. LOL... it never ends.. never ends... LOL..

Posted by OldFan:

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by subzero0:

Posted by BasketballJones:

Well, we all knew at the time (I think) that trading Randolph and Crawford would make the team worse - the Knicks were not doing that badly at the time, as I recall. I don't think the trade was done to bring in better talent or even better citizens. I thought it all had to do with 2010.

Now, I guess we could argue the merits of the whole 2010 plan, but at least it is a plan, and we should keep it in mind when evaluating Walsh's moves.

So let me get your logic straight. Your saying that by knowingly making the team worse we will look better in the eyes of the free agents we are trying to attract? My next question, WHAT THE HELL WORLD YOU LIVE IN MAN??

Without unloading Zach's contract we'd have no money to offer FA's. Which is worse, difficulty attracting FA's, or the impossibility of signing them?

Unless we get Lebron James we wont get a player better than Zach

I hope you're joking because otherwise I'm losing all faith in your critical thinking. The game is about helping your team win not filling up stat lines so to my way of thinking Zack has a thin resume and big contract. Remember we weren't the first team to trade him for garbage.

What you are saying is that you/and or others believe that Zach Randolph cannot be a major piece on a great team and I think the premise is false. It doesn't matter anymore--he is not here but I disagree with the premise. I would turn it around and ask you to think critically about the believe that these teams who have the few prime time players available--do you really believe they will sit on their hands and let these players walk out? If Zach Randolph was the PF and Alonzo Mourning[in his prime] was the C for example with a good balanced team around them--you don't believe that would be a team that could win it all? This is just talk because he's gone but to find a player who has more talent than zach will not be an easy one. And you can give me any justification that you want--you can win with a player like Zach being your PF. Winning teams are all about chemistry talent and determination. It's about the make up of the team. When you watch Zach play--does he look like a guy who has no determination to win? The Clippers have a winning record with Zach playing 35 minutes and have won 4 games when he has not. The Knicks were a winning team that couldve gotten a lot better but we chose a different path. He has a enough talent to be a part on a good team.

I'll go one step more--If I swapped out Zach Randolph for Chris Bosh and he played the same number of games--do you think Toronto would be any worse? I don't think so.

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by subzero0:

Posted by BasketballJones:

Well, we all knew at the time (I think) that trading Randolph and Crawford would make the team worse - the Knicks were not doing that badly at the time, as I recall. I don't think the trade was done to bring in better talent or even better citizens. I thought it all had to do with 2010.

Now, I guess we could argue the merits of the whole 2010 plan, but at least it is a plan, and we should keep it in mind when evaluating Walsh's moves.

So let me get your logic straight. Your saying that by knowingly making the team worse we will look better in the eyes of the free agents we are trying to attract? My next question, WHAT THE HELL WORLD YOU LIVE IN MAN??

Without unloading Zach's contract we'd have no money to offer FA's. Which is worse, difficulty attracting FA's, or the impossibility of signing them?

Unless we get Lebron James we wont get a player better than Zach

Posted by Finestrg:

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by OldFan:

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by subzero0:

Posted by BasketballJones:

Well, we all knew at the time (I think) that trading Randolph and Crawford would make the team worse - the Knicks were not doing that badly at the time, as I recall. I don't think the trade was done to bring in better talent or even better citizens. I thought it all had to do with 2010.

Now, I guess we could argue the merits of the whole 2010 plan, but at least it is a plan, and we should keep it in mind when evaluating Walsh's moves.

So let me get your logic straight. Your saying that by knowingly making the team worse we will look better in the eyes of the free agents we are trying to attract? My next question, WHAT THE HELL WORLD YOU LIVE IN MAN??

Without unloading Zach's contract we'd have no money to offer FA's. Which is worse, difficulty attracting FA's, or the impossibility of signing them?

Unless we get Lebron James we wont get a player better than Zach

I hope you're joking because otherwise I'm losing all faith in your critical thinking. The game is about helping your team win not filling up stat lines so to my way of thinking Zack has a thin resume and big contract. Remember we weren't the first team to trade him for garbage.

What you are saying is that you/and or others believe that Zach Randolph cannot be a major piece on a great team and I think the premise is false. It doesn't matter anymore--he is not here but I disagree with the premise. I would turn it around and ask you to think critically about the believe that these teams who have the few prime time players available--do you really believe they will sit on their hands and let these players walk out? If Zach Randolph was the PF and Alonzo Mourning[in his prime] was the C for example with a good balanced team around them--you don't believe that would be a team that could win it all? This is just talk because he's gone but to find a player who has more talent than zach will not be an easy one. And you can give me any justification that you want--you can win with a player like Zach being your PF. Winning teams are all about chemistry talent and determination. It's about the make up of the team. When you watch Zach play--does he look like a guy who has no determination to win? The Clippers have a winning record with Zach playing 35 minutes and have won 4 games when he has not. The Knicks were a winning team that couldve gotten a lot better but we chose a different path. He has a enough talent to be a part on a good team.

I'll go one step more--If I swapped out Zach Randolph for Chris Bosh and he played the same number of games--do you think Toronto would be any worse? I don't think so.

Man you changed your tune huh? HAHA! I remember last season and before this season where you came on here and tried to tell us that Curry was the better player between the two. Funny. Took you long enough but yes, you're right - Zach can play. Good player. Very productive. Terrible contract though. No problem at all with the Knicks trading him. We weren't good enough with him here and we really couldn't get to where we want to go with him still around. Still a good move to unload that contract no matter how productive he was/still is. Too bad though, he's a baller. Infinitely better player than Eddy Curry, I think he's even a better player than Lee, pound for pound...



[Edited by - finestrg on 02-12-2009 10:52 PM]

Eddy Curry blew Eddy Curry's career. Curry couldve been a star.

Posted by BRIGGS:


Eddy Curry blew Eddy Curry's career. Curry couldve been a star.