|
Solace
Posts: 30002
Alba Posts: 20
Joined: 10/30/2003
Member: #479
USA
|
Why do some of you guys love Marbury so much? Since he's been with the team, they've overall been below .500. The team had 33 wins this year. This is not a knock in particular about Marbury, but you have to face facts. Championship teams are not built around PGs, without some sort of solid foundations. Most teams who are successful take a top-down plan. You get a good bigman (Usually a little taller than 6'7" or 6'8".. ahem) and then work on your backcourt. Since Isiah has been here, the entire focus has been on the backcourt. Well, great, we have Crawford, Marbury, Ariza, Penny, Allan Houston, etc... and we win 33 games because we have no frontcourt. Our problem is twofold. We absolutely get burned on defense in the backcourt and we have no inside presence on the offense and defense because we're so short. Both of these things can fixed by increasing size, but we don't want just big stiffs. Therefore, the plan is simple: get rid of the backcourt defensive lapse, by trading either Marbury or Crawford (certainly not both). Right now, I think Marbury is the better choice to be traded, because Crawford could be a great tall PG and is younger. I also think Marbury has more trade value than Crawford at this juncture. We might as well trade Marbury while his trade value is high. In three years, Marbury won't net nearly as much in trade. So, trade Marbury, Crawford becomes to the new starting PG, and we add some young size with the draft picks we get for Marbury. What's the problem with this? It shows an actual plan. We're not winning a championship for the next few years either way. So, let's talk about a longer-term strategy that has potential.
What plan do you think we're on now? Did you see the team photo. The entire team, except for Marbury, Sundov and Crawford is 6'7"-6'8"!!!! Unless the plan is to tank, I don't see a plan. If the plan is to tank, then we really need to get rid of Marbury, because having him on the team is making us a little too good to get a top 3 pick. Either way you slice it, Marbury should go.
Now, LeBron came up in this conversation. Interesting... Here's the thing about LeBron. There was an article about his contract with Nike. Maybe not all of you saw it. Supposidely (it's just a rumor at this point), LeBron has a clause in there that says if he plays for a New York team, he will get paid an extra $20 million a year by Nike. Whether you choose to believe it or not, that's what was said. Nike and LeBron have not denied the rumor, however they didn't confirm it either. I'm not putting my eggs in the Nike basket, but it would present an interesting scenario: the Knicks with a solid team in two years, under the cap and LeBron is a free agent. LeBron would come to New York, reap in the $$$ and be the star on a team that has a real chance. Interesting, huh? It does happen in the NBA. Big stars go to teams and turn them around. LeBron would be able to do that for the Knicks.
There is one thing to keep in mind, though. When LeBron is an unrestricted free agent (if he doesn't sign a long term deal with the Cavs before he becomes unrestricted) there will be two New York teams. Yes, in theory, he could also sign with the Brooklyn Nets and get his big payday. We will have competition. I don't think New Jersey figures Richard Jefferson in their longterm plans. I think we would be a first choice over New Jersey, but just keep in mind that if the Cavs are sucking for the next few years, LeBron may flee the nest.
[Edited by - Solace on 04/30/2005 13:47:49]
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.
|
