BRIGGS wrote:I'm just saying if we had drafted Brook Lopez[an incredible need for us] + kept Randolph and Crawford--who dont have long on their contracts anyway--and enhanced the team reasonably--we wouldve been pretty darn good--possibly competing at a VERY VERY high level if you give honest thought about it. I mean Memphis is doing well with NO bench with a similar team that we wouldve had plus we would have had one of the best benches in the nBA. So we have scked for 2 years--we have not improved and done very little to bring the rookies along this year--if we don't get Lebron James--what exactly is the 2010 plan?{This 2010 plan has to be better than having Randolph Crawford and Lopez on the roster]--only way that happens is LBJ. We needed a C and we couldve had a very good one by luck that he fell. I don't want to hear Zach randolph scks JC scks because they have clearly proven that very faulty--they are both good players when put in the right position to succeed. They have the talent. I honestly question if we can get 1 player better than either of them--let alone two. We had to be fancy with Gallinari--not saying he wasnt a good prospect but we did not have a C for 10 years for goodness sakes.

so lets say we had drafted lopez.. and kept crawford and zach... lebron opts out and seriously considers leaving cleveland.. would have come to NY, but we didn't have cap space.. would you honestly be happy with that? I wouldn't! we have been down this road with guys like jamal and zach... they are good where they are.... smaller parts on good to decent teams.. jamal has a role as a player off the bench, something he is best suited for and would not and did not want to take here in NY..." unless we have kobe bryant here, I don't see why I should not be the starter".. that is what jamal said.. or something close to that... Zach is good as a 3rd option, he gets his shots in memphis, but they already had that core in place... Both guys are in good situations to succeed and help their teams win.. This team just was not the enviornment to do so...

tkf wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:I'm just saying if we had drafted Brook Lopez[an incredible need for us] + kept Randolph and Crawford--who dont have long on their contracts anyway--and enhanced the team reasonably--we wouldve been pretty darn good--possibly competing at a VERY VERY high level if you give honest thought about it. I mean Memphis is doing well with NO bench with a similar team that we wouldve had plus we would have had one of the best benches in the nBA. So we have scked for 2 years--we have not improved and done very little to bring the rookies along this year--if we don't get Lebron James--what exactly is the 2010 plan?{This 2010 plan has to be better than having Randolph Crawford and Lopez on the roster]--only way that happens is LBJ. We needed a C and we couldve had a very good one by luck that he fell. I don't want to hear Zach randolph scks JC scks because they have clearly proven that very faulty--they are both good players when put in the right position to succeed. They have the talent. I honestly question if we can get 1 player better than either of them--let alone two. We had to be fancy with Gallinari--not saying he wasnt a good prospect but we did not have a C for 10 years for goodness sakes.

so lets say we had drafted lopez.. and kept crawford and zach... lebron opts out and seriously considers leaving cleveland.. would have come to NY, but we didn't have cap space.. would you honestly be happy with that? I wouldn't! teams win.. This team just was not the enviornment to do so...

tkf wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:I'm just saying if we had drafted Brook Lopez[an incredible need for us] + kept Randolph and Crawford--who dont have long on their contracts anyway--and enhanced the team reasonably--we wouldve been pretty darn good--possibly competing at a VERY VERY high level if you give honest thought about it. I mean Memphis is doing well with NO bench with a similar team that we wouldve had plus we would have had one of the best benches in the nBA. So we have scked for 2 years--we have not improved and done very little to bring the rookies along this year--if we don't get Lebron James--what exactly is the 2010 plan?{This 2010 plan has to be better than having Randolph Crawford and Lopez on the roster]--only way that happens is LBJ. We needed a C and we couldve had a very good one by luck that he fell. I don't want to hear Zach randolph scks JC scks because they have clearly proven that very faulty--they are both good players when put in the right position to succeed. They have the talent. I honestly question if we can get 1 player better than either of them--let alone two. We had to be fancy with Gallinari--not saying he wasnt a good prospect but we did not have a C for 10 years for goodness sakes.

so lets say we had drafted lopez.. and kept crawford and zach... lebron opts out and seriously considers leaving cleveland.. would have come to NY, but we didn't have cap space.. would you honestly be happy with that? I wouldn't! we have been down this road with guys like jamal and zach... they are good where they are.... smaller parts on good to decent teams.. jamal has a role as a player off the bench, something he is best suited for and would not and did not want to take here in NY..." unless we have kobe bryant here, I don't see why I should not be the starter".. that is what jamal said.. or something close to that... Zach is good as a 3rd option, he gets his shots in memphis, but they already had that core in place... Both guys are in good situations to succeed and help their teams win.. This team just was not the enviornment to do so...

OK--I understand your point--but it really is the Lebron or bust mentality. If we dont get Lebron--than we certainly wasted two years. Also this is not calculating that we couldve gotten to cap space if we really wanted to down the line.

There is no 2010 plan like Cosmic is saying--there is Lebron or bust--that is the 2101 plan. Anything less--we already had that talent.

BRIGGS wrote:Can you explain this one to me a bit--I mean if Lebron James DOES NOT come here--what exactly will be different other than we can go back to taking on obscene contracts for over rated players?

There are other players in the NBA that actually play on winning and championship teams.

Lebron has never won the championship ---- why couldn't the Knicks find the right guys - draft right and win a championship without him?

BRIGGS wrote:I'm just saying if we had drafted Brook Lopez[an incredible need for us] + kept Randolph and Crawford--who dont have long on their contracts anyway--and enhanced the team reasonably--we wouldve been pretty darn good--possibly competing at a VERY VERY high level if you give honest thought about it. I mean Memphis is doing well with NO bench with a similar team that we wouldve had plus we would have had one of the best benches in the nBA. So we have scked for 2 years--we have not improved and done very little to bring the rookies along this year--if we don't get Lebron James--what exactly is the 2010 plan?{This 2010 plan has to be better than having Randolph Crawford and Lopez on the roster]--only way that happens is LBJ. We needed a C and we couldve had a very good one by luck that he fell. I don't want to hear Zach randolph scks JC scks because they have clearly proven that very faulty--they are both good players when put in the right position to succeed. They have the talent. I honestly question if we can get 1 player better than either of them--let alone two. We had to be fancy with Gallinari--not saying he wasnt a good prospect but we did not have a C for 10 years for goodness sakes.

Briggs - you are acting like Brook Lopez is something super special -- the Nets have won 4 games with him.

I still take Gallo over Lopez every time and I wouldn't have said that last year.

The Nets got themselves a center and they are worse now -- what exactly does that prove.

Please don't act like having Z-Bo and Crawford around here would be a pic-nic. ZBo played hard offensively but that is it and Crawford will always be the worst defensive 2-guard in the NBA.

BRIGGS wrote:

tkf wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:I'm just saying if we had drafted Brook Lopez[an incredible need for us] + kept Randolph and Crawford--who dont have long on their contracts anyway--and enhanced the team reasonably--we wouldve been pretty darn good--possibly competing at a VERY VERY high level if you give honest thought about it. I mean Memphis is doing well with NO bench with a similar team that we wouldve had plus we would have had one of the best benches in the nBA. So we have scked for 2 years--we have not improved and done very little to bring the rookies along this year--if we don't get Lebron James--what exactly is the 2010 plan?{This 2010 plan has to be better than having Randolph Crawford and Lopez on the roster]--only way that happens is LBJ. We needed a C and we couldve had a very good one by luck that he fell. I don't want to hear Zach randolph scks JC scks because they have clearly proven that very faulty--they are both good players when put in the right position to succeed. They have the talent. I honestly question if we can get 1 player better than either of them--let alone two. We had to be fancy with Gallinari--not saying he wasnt a good prospect but we did not have a C for 10 years for goodness sakes.

so lets say we had drafted lopez.. and kept crawford and zach... lebron opts out and seriously considers leaving cleveland.. would have come to NY, but we didn't have cap space.. would you honestly be happy with that? I wouldn't! we have been down this road with guys like jamal and zach... they are good where they are.... smaller parts on good to decent teams.. jamal has a role as a player off the bench, something he is best suited for and would not and did not want to take here in NY..." unless we have kobe bryant here, I don't see why I should not be the starter".. that is what jamal said.. or something close to that... Zach is good as a 3rd option, he gets his shots in memphis, but they already had that core in place... Both guys are in good situations to succeed and help their teams win.. This team just was not the enviornment to do so...

OK--I understand your point--but it really is the Lebron or bust mentality. If we dont get Lebron--than we certainly wasted two years. Also this is not calculating that we couldve gotten to cap space if we really wanted to down the line.

There is no 2010 plan like Cosmic is saying--there is Lebron or bust--that is the 2101 plan. Anything less--we already had that talent.

We didn't waste anything -- we weren't winning anything hte past two years.

Walsh has done exactly what had to be done.

Regardless of whether or not we land Lebron -- we still put ourselves in prime position to land 1 or 2 outstanding players while once again having our #1 picks back after this season.

We will basically be in the best position possible to attempt a true rebuild.

I can't really complain heavily about Wilson, Gallo and Hill as our picks. Sure I would have preferred a point this year but at the same time I wasn't sure if any of those points could play either. I stand by the Gallo pick and Wilson was a steal in my eyes.

kam77 wrote:I don't think Walsh will sign anybody to any obscene contract if we strike out on the big three. We may not even resign Lee. Just wait one more year and hope to get a good draft pick.

im concerned since they seem to be "trying" to win at the expense of what they have picked to be future players on the team. i cant see that mentality change and say, ok we are gonna rebuild after getting zip in 2010. they might as well have been playing rooks last year then.

BRIGGS wrote:

tkf wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:I'm just saying if we had drafted Brook Lopez[an incredible need for us] + kept Randolph and Crawford--who dont have long on their contracts anyway--and enhanced the team reasonably--we wouldve been pretty darn good--possibly competing at a VERY VERY high level if you give honest thought about it. I mean Memphis is doing well with NO bench with a similar team that we wouldve had plus we would have had one of the best benches in the nBA. So we have scked for 2 years--we have not improved and done very little to bring the rookies along this year--if we don't get Lebron James--what exactly is the 2010 plan?{This 2010 plan has to be better than having Randolph Crawford and Lopez on the roster]--only way that happens is LBJ. We needed a C and we couldve had a very good one by luck that he fell. I don't want to hear Zach randolph scks JC scks because they have clearly proven that very faulty--they are both good players when put in the right position to succeed. They have the talent. I honestly question if we can get 1 player better than either of them--let alone two. We had to be fancy with Gallinari--not saying he wasnt a good prospect but we did not have a C for 10 years for goodness sakes.

so lets say we had drafted lopez.. and kept crawford and zach... lebron opts out and seriously considers leaving cleveland.. would have come to NY, but we didn't have cap space.. would you honestly be happy with that? I wouldn't! we have been down this road with guys like jamal and zach... they are good where they are.... smaller parts on good to decent teams.. jamal has a role as a player off the bench, something he is best suited for and would not and did not want to take here in NY..." unless we have kobe bryant here, I don't see why I should not be the starter".. that is what jamal said.. or something close to that... Zach is good as a 3rd option, he gets his shots in memphis, but they already had that core in place... Both guys are in good situations to succeed and help their teams win.. This team just was not the enviornment to do so...

OK--I understand your point--but it really is the Lebron or bust mentality. If we dont get Lebron--than we certainly wasted two years. Also this is not calculating that we couldve gotten to cap space if we really wanted to down the line.

There is no 2010 plan like Cosmic is saying--there is Lebron or bust--that is the 2101 plan. Anything less--we already had that talent.

I can see your point there... I don't like the lebron or bust plan. .I wanted a 2010 plan.. this is why i feel we should have been playing the kids, getting them fixed in roles, and moving some of our assets for young pieces to add to the core.. Ie: moving maybe, lee and nate or one of the two for some future assets.. Instead we wasted time showcasing vets, reclamation projects, and trying to make the playoffs and really compromised the development of our young players... Even with that, I am happy that although we don't have a first round pick this year at this point. We have a legit shot at one of the big free agents.. something we couldn't say in the last 10 years...

bitty41 wrote:Question why is Walsh not held accountable like Layden and Isiah were by fans on here?

Does losing count less if you do it while under the cap?

isiah and layden were given more time than this before they got turned against.

walsh will offer the max to lebron immediately upon the clock striking. if he doesn’t take it ,he'll offer it to wade.

if neither take it i won't blame walsh. imo it was the right thing to do to clear space and go for one of those guys.