or

1. Lead tba

2. The Mayor

3. tba (the next juicy draft pick)

4. Zach, for reasons stated above

5. Lee, should he develop a go-to shot from 14 feet in. A reasonable facsimile of a Jack Sikma step-back jumper would be outstanding.

6. Renaldo Balkman as sixth (energy) man

TrueBlue - actually I'm trying to make it simple by defining terminolgy so people can get on the same page.

Check it out:

1. How many players comprise a core? One Superstar (Kobe) or two All-Stars (Duncan and the French dude) or three "better than average dudes" (2005 Pistons)

2. if it is composed of more than one player - What is the minimum time needed to allow a core to cohere?

3. Were Marcus Camby and Latrell Sprewell the core of the '99 Miracle Knicks?

Or was the core Larry Johnson and Kurt Thomas?

[Edited by - misterearl on 10-21-2007 2:53 PM]

Posted by misterearl:

TrueBlue - actually I'm trying to make it simple by defining terminolgy so people can get on the same page.

Check it out:

1. How many players comprise a core? One Superstar (Kobe) or two All-Stars (Duncan and the French dude) or three "better than average dudes" (2005 Pistons)

2. if it is composed of more than one player - What is the minimum time needed to allow a core to cohere?

3. Were Marcus Camby and Latrell Sprewell the core of the '99 Miracle Knicks?

Or was the core Larry Johnson and Kurt Thomas?

[Edited by - misterearl on 10-21-2007 2:53 PM]

I think a core constitutes 2,3, or 4 guys who's games compiment each other and who you feel can be viable peices in a championship run. Ideally, said players would be starters, and the better they are, and the more of them you have, the better your team wil be.

The Lakers have a core of one in Kobe. If he's traded Odom and Bynum become part of a new core, plus whoever else they may get in a trade.

The '99 knicks started with a core of Houston, LJ, Patrick and Kurt, but the team only became strong when Camby and Spree established themselves (were allowed to, if you will) as core contributors. That was very delicate core, btw, because of LJ, Patrick and Camby's propensity toward injuries.

The problem we have with the Knicks is uncertainty over who can mesh, and who can be a viable starter for a contender. Obviously, with a strong enough supporting cast almost any player can help a contender, but that's nothing like the case here.

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by misterearl:

TrueBlue - actually I'm trying to make it simple by defining terminolgy so people can get on the same page.

Check it out:

1. How many players comprise a core? One Superstar (Kobe) or two All-Stars (Duncan and the French dude) or three "better than average dudes" (2005 Pistons)

2. if it is composed of more than one player - What is the minimum time needed to allow a core to cohere?

3. Were Marcus Camby and Latrell Sprewell the core of the '99 Miracle Knicks?

Or was the core Larry Johnson and Kurt Thomas?

[Edited by - misterearl on 10-21-2007 2:53 PM]

I think a core constitutes 2,3, or 4 guys who's games compiment each other and who you feel can be viable peices in a championship run. Ideally, said players would be starters, and the better they are, and the more of them you have, the better your team wil be.

The Lakers have a core of one in Kobe. If he's traded Odom and Bynum become part of a new core, plus whoever else they may get in a trade.

The '99 knicks started with a core of Houston, LJ, Patrick and Kurt, but the team only became strong when Camby and Spree established themselves (were allowed to, if you will) as core contributors. That was very delicate core, btw, because of LJ, Patrick and Camby's propensity toward injuries.

The problem we have with the Knicks is uncertainty over who can mesh, and who can be a viable starter for a contender. Obviously, with a strong enough supporting cast almost any player can help a contender, but that's nothing like the case here.

You hit the nail on the head. I don't think any of our players would be starters on a championship winning team and I don't think you can call any of them components of a core being built to win a championship.

But this is what I find interesting. I think we can take whoever our most hated player is and inset him inot the right team and that team would still be good, and he could be considered a winner.


For instance, let imagine Rip goes down in Detroit and they somehow replace him with Jamal. It might take a year, like ti took with billips, but I think Jamal would quickly adapt and contribute well. Maybe not as well as Rip, but no so bad as to derail them.

Ditto with Curry, say, next to Duncan in San Antonio. Within a year Eddy would be a much improved player. or they'd at least know how to utilize him better.

A good/great team can absorb and possibly transform a so so player, but you can't have a team ful of such guys, because if you take the time to school them and bench them simultaneously you crash, like under Brown.

Isiah has done an awful job of getting too many guys with bad motors, and of not being able to impliment a structure to transform them. He's even brought in HOF coaches to do the job and then limited them and their effects.

Our core, whoever it is, is very shakey, and the turbulent times at MSG have done nothing to make them stronger or stabilize their footing.

And as for isiah as coach, were many prefer him to be...we know he's lousey with lineups and X's and O's, but if motivation is supposed to be his strong suit, why is it we struggle with conditioning, or to give effort on defense, or to show up to so many games, and to crumble from boo's, etc?

Where is the structural integrity of this team? It's made of paper.

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by misterearl:

TrueBlue - actually I'm trying to make it simple by defining terminolgy so people can get on the same page.

Check it out:

1. How many players comprise a core? One Superstar (Kobe) or two All-Stars (Duncan and the French dude) or three "better than average dudes" (2005 Pistons)

2. if it is composed of more than one player - What is the minimum time needed to allow a core to cohere?

3. Were Marcus Camby and Latrell Sprewell the core of the '99 Miracle Knicks?

Or was the core Larry Johnson and Kurt Thomas?

[Edited by - misterearl on 10-21-2007 2:53 PM]

I think a core constitutes 2,3, or 4 guys who's games compiment each other and who you feel can be viable peices in a championship run. Ideally, said players would be starters, and the better they are, and the more of them you have, the better your team wil be.

The Lakers have a core of one in Kobe. If he's traded Odom and Bynum become part of a new core, plus whoever else they may get in a trade.

The '99 knicks started with a core of Houston, LJ, Patrick and Kurt, but the team only became strong when Camby and Spree established themselves (were allowed to, if you will) as core contributors. That was very delicate core, btw, because of LJ, Patrick and Camby's propensity toward injuries.

The problem we have with the Knicks is uncertainty over who can mesh, and who can be a viable starter for a contender. Obviously, with a strong enough supporting cast almost any player can help a contender, but that's nothing like the case here.

I agree pretty much with everything you said but would like to add your core has to consist of players you aren't looking to deal at every deadline and every off-season. Take for instance the Pistons team. Dumars was never looking to deal Billups, Rip, Prince, Ben, and Sheed. Those guys played together for 3yrs and there never was any flip flopping as to their status or roles were. I mean damn Crawford is still talking about being a starter after being here for 4yrs and they keep tinkering with his position G, SF, PG.


Ditto San Antonio Duncan, Parker, Ginobli

[Edited by - TrueBlue on 10-21-2007 2:44 PM]

Din't we go thru this in this very thread last night?

I think you have to consider who your core is on a given day.

Were Oakly, Camby and Spree core guys before they were traded? I think they were.

Shawn Marion has been in trade rumors this summer; has he not been part of the Sun's core?

I don't know who the core is, I expect that to be revealed in the first 2 months.

But here is my starting 5 that I believe give the team balance:

PG Marbury
SG Collins
SF Balkman
PF Randolph
C Curry

Curry and Randolph are the offense.

Marbury and Collins are the only ones on the team who can play PG. Collins might have the coolest head on the team.

Marbury needs to break down the defense and station himself for outside shots to give Curry and Randolph a good option to throw it out to.

Collins and Balkman don't need shots so they don't compete with the big men in the offense. At the same time, even though Collins isn't a good outside shooter, he can score pretty nicely on drives.

Balkman starts over Lee because he can actually guard his man on the perimeter, and rebound nearly as well as Lee. He also provides some interior defense and some extra dribbling ability.

Balkman and Collins will be bigger and stronger than most of the guys they are guarding so they should rebound well.

Mabury, Balkman, and Collins all can finish pretty well on the break so that part of the offense is not lost either.

That's the team I would start with.

Also, Isiah should run the offense through Randolph, not Curry. A dunk or layup from Curry is just as good coming from a Randolph pass (Or a rebound!) as it is from a guard feed. But Randolph understands how to pass out much better than black-hole Curry.

oohah

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by misterearl:

TrueBlue - actually I'm trying to make it simple by defining terminolgy so people can get on the same page.

Check it out:

1. How many players comprise a core? One Superstar (Kobe) or two All-Stars (Duncan and the French dude) or three "better than average dudes" (2005 Pistons)

2. if it is composed of more than one player - What is the minimum time needed to allow a core to cohere?

3. Were Marcus Camby and Latrell Sprewell the core of the '99 Miracle Knicks?

Or was the core Larry Johnson and Kurt Thomas?

[Edited by - misterearl on 10-21-2007 2:53 PM]

I think a core constitutes 2,3, or 4 guys who's games compiment each other and who you feel can be viable peices in a championship run. Ideally, said players would be starters, and the better they are, and the more of them you have, the better your team wil be.

The Lakers have a core of one in Kobe. If he's traded Odom and Bynum become part of a new core, plus whoever else they may get in a trade.

The '99 knicks started with a core of Houston, LJ, Patrick and Kurt, but the team only became strong when Camby and Spree established themselves (were allowed to, if you will) as core contributors. That was very delicate core, btw, because of LJ, Patrick and Camby's propensity toward injuries.

The problem we have with the Knicks is uncertainty over who can mesh, and who can be a viable starter for a contender. Obviously, with a strong enough supporting cast almost any player can help a contender, but that's nothing like the case here.

You hit the nail on the head. I don't think any of our players would be starters on a championship winning team and I don't think you can call any of them components of a core being built to win a championship.

But this is what I find interesting. I think we can take whoever our most hated player is and inset him inot the right team and that team would still be good, and he could be considered a winner.


For instance, let imagine Rip goes down in Detroit and they somehow replace him with Jamal. It might take a year, like ti took with billips, but I think Jamal would quickly adapt and contribute well. Maybe not as well as Rip, but no so bad as to derail them.

Ditto with Curry, say, next to Duncan in San Antonio. Within a year Eddy would be a much improved player. or they'd at least know how to utilize him better.

A good/great team can absorb and possibly transform a so so player, but you can't have a team ful of such guys, because if you take the time to school them and bench them simultaneously you crash, like under Brown.

Isiah has done an awful job of getting too many guys with bad motors, and of not being able to impliment a structure to transform them. He's even brought in HOF coaches to do the job and then limited them and their effects.

Our core, whoever it is, is very shakey, and the turbulent times at MSG have done nothing to make them stronger or stabilize their footing.

And as for isiah as coach, were many prefer him to be...we know he's lousey with lineups and X's and O's, but if motivation is supposed to be his strong suit, why is it we struggle with conditioning, or to give effort on defense, or to show up to so many games, and to crumble from boo's, etc?

Where is the structural integrity of this team? It's made of paper.

I actually DON'T think that's the case. I think the guys in our starting lineup all have significant enough liabilities that they wouldn't be starters on a championship team unless the team had at least two but probably three hall-of-famers to compensate. Eddy's virtually useless unless he's hogging the ball on offense, which would kill San Antonio's offense. Jamal's turnovers, off balance jump shots, and poor defense would kill Detroit. There's a reason we DON'T--we NEVER--see players like Jamal, Steph, and Eddy on championship teams and that reason is that those players' liabilities are too damaging for their teams to win championships.

And just to be clear, I'm not talking about guys like Eddy and Jamal replacing core players on contenders, I'm just saying a solid team can absorb and acclimate them in supplementary roles without destroying the whole. The problem here is we are trying to make them core players; they are our whole.

(Or "hole" as some would have it.)

Posted by BlueSeats:

And just to be clear, I'm not talking about guys like Eddy and Jamal replacing core players on contenders, I'm just saying a solid team can absorb and acclimate them in supplementary roles without destroying the whole. The problem here is we are trying to make them core players; they are our whole.

(Or "hole" as some would have it.)

Its been the down fall of the Knicks ever since Ewing & LJ left NY.

I think Randolph could be a star in this league though. Him next to a stud PG developing a 2 man game could be whats missing.

Im starting to doubt that Curry will ever be a star(the 4rebs in 30min preseason game is very disapointing), but he could be a very strong low post scoring role player on a good team. Put him next to 2-3 lunch pale bangers or energitic hustle players like Noah from Chi, and a playmaking PG or SG. He could be on a winning team. Depending on how good the Guards are would determine how much success they have.

Crawford needs to be in a free flowing up and down style of play. Let him be creative in the open court.

I don't feel Randolph, Curry, Crawford will ever fit together. Marbury also isn't counted on to being part of the future. And even if they did fit together they don't make the makeup of a contender. Randolph, Lee, Chandler, Balkman seems to be a nice bunch of fowards though.

PS: This is a good thread, its not a hates fested thread but a thread where you can respect the concerns. If there were more threads like this then there wouldn't be as big a *hater* vs *lover* war.