Posted by Erniecat:

Posted by TheGame:

I think Balkman is showing that it is him and not Lee who should be getting more minutes next year. I think Lee shoud stay around 30 mins spelling Curry and Randolph but Balkman should get all the backup minutes at the SF spot. I also want IT to limit Q to about 28 minutes to make sure his back holds up.

Are those the only minutes Balkman should get? Because just getting backup minutes at SF is not going to keep Balkman on the court for as long as she should be out there.

I just don't understand why it would be such a crime to start Q at 2 and Balkman at 3 and let Crawford get his minutes off the bench. We should at least try it out.

IT is not sitting Crawford. I agree that would porbably be our best lineup but I don't see it happening. If you give Q 24 minutes at SF and 5-6 minutes at SG, you can give Balkman about 24 minutes a game at SF. I think he should be playing even more, but unless someone gets hurt or IT wises up and makes Crawford come off the bench, there probably are not going to be more than 25 minutes available for Balkman.

Posted by Silverfuel:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Silverfuel:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Silverfuel:

Posted by Bonn1997:

"If the guy cannot score"? Did you watch him at all last year? Give him 38 mpg and he'll score 14 PPG without having one play called for him.

Wow!! 14 points in 38 minutes! Wow! Thats amazing Bonn but your selective stats are getting tired. Did you watch him last year? He doesn't have plays called for him because he cannot score on his own. You want to feature him on offense? Are you kidding me because 14 points in 38 minutes is not enough.

I didn't say he was an amazing scorer and I didn't say I wanted to feature him. I can't imagine how you thought I said those things. All I said was that your comment that he cannot score was wrong (to put it politely).

You called him our best player so I asked you what makes him our best player. Can he create his own shot? No. Is he a shutdown defender? No. Does he have a good jumpshot? No. So tell me Bonn, what makes him better than Marbury, Zach or even Balkman? I say Balkman is just as good, if not better than Lee. I say your premise that Lee is our best player has been wrong. Politely of course.

I was talking about our best player last year (which was before we had Zach). I'm talking about total impact on the game. You can find that from any statistical analysis or from his energy and hustle, creating second shots for teammates with offensive boards, preventing second shots for the opponent with defensive boards, and good passing skills. If Marbury is focussed like he was for part of last season, then he might be ahead of Lee, but that's a gigantic "if".

In the lineup I proposed earlier, David Lee would be our *fifth* scoring option. (He wouldn't be featured on the offense like you suggested.) Marbury and Zach would be the prime scoring threats with Jamal and Q as the next two threats. Our fifth threat in Lee would be giving us about 13 or 14 PPG and pulling down tons of rebounds to get those four other players more shots.

Thats bull****! Our 5th scoring option who does not play great defense is our best player? There is no way in hell that makes sense. Even Oakley had an awesome 15 foot jumpshot

But yet Oakley wasn't a better scorer than Lee. He had a 15 foot jumpshot but no explosiveness around the basket and no ability to finish cut to the hoop and finish with either hand like Lee has. They simply got their points in different ways. And Oakley in his prime would have been the best player on the team last year.

Posted by fishmike:

who is our best player? Just curious...

In order: Stephon, Zach Randolph, Curry, disciplined Crawford and then Lee and Balkman. I think Curry, Lee and Balkman have the most potential out of anyone on the roster and IMHO, Curry has the greatest upside. All this is subjective but I cannot buy Lee as our best player. We cannot run the offense through him but we can through Curry, Zach and Marbury. We cannot have him defend the other teams best offensive player but we can do that with Balkman. We can expect him to get the hustle rebound but that does not make someone the best player on a team that has better offensive and defensive players.

He might be the most valuable trade asset we have at this point because he has a good attitude and all the other right qualities but his offense and defense both have a long way to go before he can become a franchise level prospect. Let me say that I like Lee. I liked him more as PF than Frye, which is why I wanted Frye gone when a trade for Garnett was rumored but Larry Brown wanted to make him a SF. Whatever, failed experiment but he is still a valuable asset.

We should find the right role for him. If we put him in a big time role like whatever the fuk Bonn means by calling him our best player, we are setting him up for failure. We should use him next to a good defender (Balkman) and a good offensive player (Curry, Zach or Marbury). He can clean up the boards, he can have his put backs and his tip ins and his intensity will have an overall great effect on the outcome of the game. We focus the offense on him and he will look terrible, we ask him to concentrate on defending the other teams best player and he won't be able to do all the other good stuff. We use him next to Curry and Balkman and we are maximizing his potential.

One thing you cant argue... the KNICKS play their BEST ball with Lee on the floor and their WORST ball with him off of it.

http://www.82games.com/0607/0607NYK.HTM

Maybe you can say that Lee is the BEST at making the guys he plays with better? I would say thats fair when you consider the mistakes his play covers and the intangibles he brings.

But thats because he does only what he is capable of doing. Let me ask you something fishmike, what happens if we give Lee Curry's job or maybe even Balkman or Q's job? Won't we end up playing poorly? We should use him the same way we used him last year. Not as our best player.

I think you can expect close to the same from Balkman. I wanted to see a front court Eddy, Lee and Balkman but now that we have Zach, Lee becomes the 6th man. But isn't that perfect for a hustle guy? I can buy someone saying Lee is the glue that holds the team together. I can also buy Lee is being the best role player on the team but come on, best player? I wonder how you can make a guy that can't score on his own and can't defend as well the best player. Allan Houston played better defense than David Lee.

hat happens if we give Lee Curry's job

Give him Curry's job? What do you mean by that?

Posted by Bonn1997:

hat happens if we give Lee Curry's job

Give him Curry's job? What do you mean by that?

Tells me how much you have been watching. Scoring weapon in the paint that cannot be stopped by the likes of Dwight Howard.

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Silverfuel:

Posted by Bonn1997:

hat happens if we give Lee Curry's job

Give him Curry's job? What do you mean by that?

Tells me how much you have been watching. Scoring weapon in the paint that cannot be stopped by the likes of Dwight Howard.

Why does Lee have to do that? We just got Zach! He can score in the post and pass adequately when double teamed too.

It's not that Lee has to do that, it's that Lee CANNOT do that. It's that Lee is not the best player on the Knicks like you said. It's that now you cannot backup your original point, you start leeching off fishmikes post and try to generate an argument (not a debate) by going off on a tangent.

Bonn, your arguments are starting to sound stupider by the post again. I think I discovered your MO. You say something, then when someone questions it and you cannot back it up, you start changing the subject. How exactly is Lee the best player on this team if he is the 5th option on offense and not a good defender? Man up bro!

Posted by Solace:

Honestly, I'm reading you two going back and forth, and I think you're not speaking the same language.

I agree with Bonn. Lee was our best player last year. Why? Simple fact that he had the most impact on the game. But it depends on what you value.

First, I don't think he had the most impact. He had a positive impact because he is a hustle player but that enables Marbury to make the pass and Eddy to take the shot. He had a positive impact on guys like Marbury, Eddy and Crawford. Do you think he can carry our team on offense or defense? Do you think we can run the offense through him? We did with Curry even though the outcome wasn't great. We would do much worse if we ran the offense through him or made him our main defensive guy.

How else do you measure impact? Can he win us games on his own? Eddy has, Stephon has but Lee hasn't. Thats just not the type of player he is. He is a role player. He is a damn good role player but thats what he is and certainly not our best.

I think when some posters look at a player, they look at the following:
1) Scoring
2) Athleticism

and hold less value to some of the other statistics.

How about, creating your own shot, scoring in the paint or defending the other team's best player? Thats what I look for. Marbury and Crawford can create their own shot. Curry can score in the paint. Balkman can and has defended the other teams best player.

But here's the thing. Who was better than Lee last year? I'll go down your list, Silver.

1) Stephon Marbury - Please. The guy had a career worst year and was commended for "trying". His impact was that when he actually tried, he gave us a very slight edge at PG. I emphasize very slight.
2) Zach Randolph - Wasn't on the team last year; doesn't count
3) Eddy Curry - Did one thing very well. Was terrible in all other areas. I consider him more in contention for biggest disappointment of last season, next to Channing Frye.
4) disciplined Crawford - There was no disciplined Crawford last year, so you can't count him. Lee was clearly better and much more consistent than Crawford.

That's my view. I think Bonn feels similarly.

[Edited by - Solace on Jul 13 2007 7:45 PM]

And even then they are more valuable to our team than Lee. Lee rebounds the ball and passes to Stephon then runs down the side and waits for Crawford, Curry or Q to take a shot. Then he goes and clears the board. Role player? Yes! Good role player. Maybe the best role player on our team but can you bench Eddy and start Lee? Hell no! You cannot run the offense through him and you cannot ask him to guard Jermaine, Lebron, Pierce or Boozer. There is no way we win more games that way! How can he be the best player if you cannot depend on him for offense or for defense?

You could say Lee is our most fundamentally sound player, and you may get fewer arguments. He knows when to shoot, when to pass, and when to drive. He's on the right place on the floor to take advantage of easy baskets, and he's generally doing the right thing on defense. He's a good player.

But... there aren't any truly dominant elements to his game. Eddy Curry, on the other hand, is a very dominant scorer - and he has the type of game that puts a huge stress on defensive players. Yeah, he's a mediocre rebounder and a mediocre passer & defender. But it's his unbelievable post skills that make him special. You could have a dozen players like Lee, but they won't impact the game the way an Eddy Curry will. That's just how it is. Our hope for Curry is that he gradually shores up these holes in his game so we can say he's unquestionably the best player on the team.