[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

K nicks need to trade either Curry or Randolph.....
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 3 of 4 ‹ Previous 1  2  3  4 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
12/4/2007  5:52 PM
Posted by Bippity10:

I keep seeing how our players need a better supporting cast. The reason why we always need a better supporting cast is that we continue to bring in 1 dimensional players.


I don't care if your 10 dimensional (okay I don't if thats possible) YOU NEED A SUPPORTING CAST okay class say it again YOU NEED A SUPPORTING CAST. I will now list numerous top players who failed when they had poor supporting casts.

KG and Timberwolves yea 33 wins outstanding!! Well then of course you could be like Kobe Bryant and the Lakers last season win 1 a game in the first round of the playoffs so I guess that could be called successful. Paul Pierce's Celtics were on the way up prior to this summer's acquistions. Tracy McGrady in Orlando worked out fantastically! Ray Allen had Rashard Lewis in Seattle and they still got almost nothing done together. So from these few examples what have we learned: that talented players alone cannot make a bad team good or a good team great.

So yes a GM has to put into place the proper center pieces but also finding the proper supporting cast is equally important.



AUTOADVERT
TLover
Posts: 21069
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 2/12/2003
Member: #381
USA
12/4/2007  5:57 PM
Hey maybe the sixers new gm could trade Dalembert & Dre Miller 2 players that would us. I think at this stage I'd trade Curry & Crawford for them.
Both teams have the same record and both need a shot in the arm with a trade like this. Obviously I'd like more considering what we gave up for Curry.
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
12/4/2007  5:59 PM
i just gave u several examples of how i've kept an open mind on past trades of players that carried along w/them horrendous contracts, 1 of whom came here w/a ton of talent & ability in Steph, none of which i ever expected to be an MVP candidate... i've never held players to these standards yet u seem to be suggesting that i have... i only ask that the players being brought in make logical sense & fit some type of logical vision of what we're trying to build here, which should be a balanced, winning team... Zach didn't fit this team's needs & this team is just as bad as they were last season with all of the same weaknesses & shortcomings... so why did we trade for him? cuz he came to us for "cheap" at only $61 million dollars & Channing Frye? come on.

You lost track there what your responding to was from my first post. But I do think its hilarious that you believe there is some type of rhyme or reason behind the construction of this team. There is no vision thats the point thats why Isiah needs to be handed his pink slip thats why the Knicks will continue to suck because THERE IS NO VISION OR LONG-TERM GOAL! Logical smogical that word does not exist in our universe.
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
12/4/2007  6:09 PM
Posted by bitty41:
i just gave u several examples of how i've kept an open mind on past trades of players that carried along w/them horrendous contracts, 1 of whom came here w/a ton of talent & ability in Steph, none of which i ever expected to be an MVP candidate... i've never held players to these standards yet u seem to be suggesting that i have... i only ask that the players being brought in make logical sense & fit some type of logical vision of what we're trying to build here, which should be a balanced, winning team... Zach didn't fit this team's needs & this team is just as bad as they were last season with all of the same weaknesses & shortcomings... so why did we trade for him? cuz he came to us for "cheap" at only $61 million dollars & Channing Frye? come on.

You lost track there what your responding to was from my first post. But I do think its hilarious that you believe there is some type of rhyme or reason behind the construction of this team. There is no vision thats the point thats why Isiah needs to be handed his pink slip thats why the Knicks will continue to suck because THERE IS NO VISION OR LONG-TERM GOAL! Logical smogical that word does not exist in our universe.

wow, is it that hard to understand? the entire reason why i hate the Zach trade is because i know there IS no rhyme or reason behind the construction of the team... i'd like any future moves to HAVE some rhyme & reason... u can't build a balanced team by continuing to make nonsensical move after nonsensical move... that is the point... otherwise why bother taking on all that extra salary when your team will continue to suck??? what exactly are you having a hard time understanding here in what i'm trying to say?
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
Bippity10
Posts: 13999
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2004
Member: #574
12/4/2007  6:18 PM
Posted by bitty41:
Posted by Bippity10:

I keep seeing how our players need a better supporting cast. The reason why we always need a better supporting cast is that we continue to bring in 1 dimensional players.


I don't care if your 10 dimensional (okay I don't if thats possible) YOU NEED A SUPPORTING CAST okay class say it again YOU NEED A SUPPORTING CAST. I will now list numerous top players who failed when they had poor supporting casts.

KG and Timberwolves yea 33 wins outstanding!! Well then of course you could be like Kobe Bryant and the Lakers last season win 1 a game in the first round of the playoffs so I guess that could be called successful. Paul Pierce's Celtics were on the way up prior to this summer's acquistions. Tracy McGrady in Orlando worked out fantastically! Ray Allen had Rashard Lewis in Seattle and they still got almost nothing done together. So from these few examples what have we learned: that talented players alone cannot make a bad team good or a good team great.

So yes a GM has to put into place the proper center pieces but also finding the proper supporting cast is equally important.

Bitty it's one thing to need a supporting cast to compete for playoffs and titles etc. But I'm not even going that route. What I am talking about is these players being able to elevate their supporting cast. A true leader elevates his cast. He may not have enough to turn a group of scrubs into a playoff team, but he can lift their play.

If you give Garnett a 20 win supporting cast, he wins 30 games, a 30 win supporting cast and he wins 40 etc. Give Jamal, Eddie, Steph etc a 40 win supporting cast, and they win 23 and 33. Yes you need teammates to be a top tier team in this league. But at least once I'd like to see this team meet expectations. Just once. I'm not even asking them to exceed. Just meet. They have the supporting cast in place to win 40+ games. They've had it in place for a few years now. But for some reason it doesn't happen.
I just hope that people will like me
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
12/4/2007  6:29 PM
wow, is it that hard to understand? the entire reason why i hate the Zach trade is because i know there IS no rhyme or reason behind the construction of the team... i'd like any future moves to HAVE some rhyme & reason... u can't build a balanced team by continuing to make nonsensical move after nonsensical move... that is the point... otherwise why bother taking on all that extra salary when your team will continue to suck??? what exactly are you having a hard time understanding here in what i'm trying to say?

I still think its hilarious but it boils down to this; you'll speak the usual party lines of "he's a black hole" "oh he goes to strip clubs" "oh he plays no defense" "oh he plays no defense" blah blah blah. But I think a good coach could make Zach a valuable piece of a winning team. Now is that so hard too understand?

So just like any player you gamble on in the draft, a free-agent signing, trade, sometimes it never pays off, sometimes it pays off immediately, and sometimes it pays off down the road. And if down the road he helps turn this team around no one will give a shyt about his contract. I think the talent and skill is there just needs some better guidance

Just ask Rashard Lewis.

But lets all propose the alway relevant message board trade proposals.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
12/4/2007  6:32 PM
Eddy's now averaging 5.9 RPG! This is a 6'11" athletic, strong center playing over 30 mpg! Where's that thread about who (Nate or Eddy) would average more rebounds per minute?!
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
12/4/2007  6:37 PM
wow, i don't get all the bitterness from u here... the reasonw why i say he's a black hole is because he is... he rarely passes out of the post effectively & he's a turn over machine... the reason i say he plays no defense is because he doesn't... we needed a defensive frontcourt player & he doesn't fit the bill... u somehow feel that a good coach will miraculously transform Zach into a valuable piece of a winning team... how exactly do you propose he will do that when all the players around Zach don't complement his skillset? the only thing that's hard to understand here is why you justify the Zach trade but continue to point out the imbalance in our current roster.

when a trade goes down & it clearly doesn't help a team, it deserves to be bashed... tell me exactly how the Knicks are better off now than they were before now that Zach is here... u keep harping about the talent, the talent, the talent... coincidentally that's what Isiah's been using to explain every roster move he's made since he got here... so what's more hilarious, the fact that you think the Zach trade was a good trade to make or me saying it wasn't? think about it.

as for the trade making sense down the road, i don't know how many times i've repeated over & over that IF Isiah makes a move to trade Curry &/or D Lee to bring in a player to complement Zach's game, then it will have been a good trade to make... as of now he hasn't & nothing in Isiah's past moves indicates that he has any plans to do so.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
12/4/2007  6:53 PM
Posted by TMS:

wow, i don't get all the bitterness from u here... the reasonw why i say he's a black hole is because he is... he rarely passes out of the post effectively & he's a turn over machine... the reason i say he plays no defense is because he doesn't... we needed a defensive frontcourt player & he doesn't fit the bill... u somehow feel that a good coach will miraculously transform Zach into a valuable piece of a winning team... how exactly do you propose he will do that when all the players around Zach don't complement his skillset? the only thing that's hard to understand here is why you justify the Zach trade but continue to point out the imbalance in our current roster.

when a trade goes down & it clearly doesn't help a team, it deserves to be bashed... tell me exactly how the Knicks are better off now than they were before now that Zach is here... u keep harping about the talent, the talent, the talent... coincidentally that's what Isiah's been using to explain every roster move he's made since he got here... so what's more hilarious, the fact that you think the Zach trade was a good trade to make or me saying it wasn't? think about it.

as for the trade making sense down the road, i don't know how many times i've repeated over & over that IF Isiah makes a move to trade Curry &/or D Lee to bring in a player to complement Zach's game, then it will have been a good trade to make... as of now he hasn't & nothing in Isiah's past moves indicates that he has any plans to do so.

Bitterness now that is hilarious sorry to disappoint but I just don't have that much emotion invested in it. But my eyes are starting hurt from reading the same redundant statements over and over and over and over and over again. Thus I am forced to repeat myself over and over and over and over again. I like the Zach trade you don't congratulations we both win an all expenses paid trip to the front of our computers.
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
12/4/2007  7:05 PM
yeah, i'm pretty tired of hearing the same stuff from you too... at least we got that in common
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
12/4/2007  7:14 PM
Bitty it's one thing to need a supporting cast to compete for playoffs and titles etc. But I'm not even going that route. What I am talking about is these players being able to elevate their supporting cast. A true leader elevates his cast. He may not have enough to turn a group of scrubs into a playoff team, but he can lift their play.

This is what I like to call the Rocky speech don't why I call it that but just do. Anyways I call this the "Rocky speech" because every once in awhile you'll see someone say "hey if he was true leader he would elevate his supporting cast". I start getting the warm fuzzies, start feeling inspired, and I put on ESPN classics.

Because this statement takes me down memory lane where I remember MJ, Hakeem, Bird, Magic aaah the good ole days. This was probably the last time period in which you saw single players elevate entire teams. Occassionally you see glimpises but for the most part the teams that have made smart moves across the board are the last man standing come June. Its no longer a few players but its effort from all those involved all the way from management to the training staff.

So though I think this a terrific statement and I would like nothing more in the world to get a player like this he's not present on this roster. But I never said he was please before we go any futher do not misunderstand me I am not making Zach out as "savior" and so now you see why it was a wast your time to write this
If you give Garnett a 20 win supporting cast, he wins 30 games, a 30 win supporting cast and he wins 40 etc.
Umm so I have a question when the Wolves won 33 and 32 games for Garnett's last two seasons did. So then this begs the question whats lower then a lottery team umm lottery team.
Give Jamal, Eddie, Steph etc a 40 win supporting cast, and they win 23 and 33. Yes you need teammates to be a top tier team in this league

Are you crazy! Hell no I don't want them winning 40 games I want them winning 20 maybe less if that gets Isiah an absolute guranteed ticket out of NY. So until the Knicks get rid of him I want to see a very minimal amount of winning because any meeting of expectations will only prolong this suffering.

[Edited by - bitty41 on 12-04-2007 7:27 PM]
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
12/4/2007  7:20 PM
Posted by TMS:

yeah, i'm pretty tired of hearing the same stuff from you too... at least we got that in common

You take this stuff way too seriously. Hey I don't mind eating crow for awhile if Zach turns out to be another Marbury disaster then hey im wrong and if he doesn't I'll be happy because I want to see him earn a bit of respect around the league and do well for us. Take note of how I used "earn".
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
12/4/2007  7:24 PM
it's not about eating crow or being right or wrong... sheesh, i've been completely wrong on a number of occasions, namely on those trades that landed us Marbury & Francis to begin with... learning from past mistakes is a good thing, but apparently our franchise has yet to figure this out.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
BlueSeats
Posts: 27272
Alba Posts: 41
Joined: 11/6/2005
Member: #1024
12/4/2007  7:39 PM
bitty, here's what I don't understand. You seem to be saying something along the lines of: Zach is a keeper but his supporting cast is sub par. But what exactly separates Zach from Marbury, Jamal, and Eddy? You could take any one of them and say the same thing. They have differences between them, but they are all talented yet flakey. None of them have demonstrated the brains, commitment or leadership to be anything but good individual performers on bad teams.

Even if the argument can be made that Zach is the best of them (though Marbury may have been better in his prime) I don't think that is enough to distinguish him as something apart from the pack.

People used to ask me why was I bashing Marbury when he was the best player on the team, and it's because there is a certain responsibility toward the team that goes along with that role which he was not fulfilling: being a leader, setting a good example, getting others involved, making wise decisions, taking responsibility, elevating his teammates, etc. Those same posters said if Steph had other players as good as him to play with we'd see how good he really is, but alas, he's got players better than him now and it's still yet to work.

Steph, Eddy, Jamal and Zach have each other, they're all similarly good, and they're supposed to be able to make something of each other.

I just get the feeling we'll struggle with Zach for a while, giving him the benefit of the doubt as "our best player," until the day we get someone better than him, who'll be the one to get the benefit of the doubt while Zach gets lumped with the underperforming support cast.

There is a reason the cast underperforms. It's because they don't know good team ball, they don't play D, and they don't know how to contribute when their shot isn't falling. Now does that sound like Zach or is he somehow different than that?

Excuse my long winded post, but the point with in it is this: by what criteria do you elevate Zach above Marbury, Eddy and Jamal? How have you determined he's any more of a keeper than them?
WOODMANnYk
Posts: 22417
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 6/30/2002
Member: #529
USA
12/4/2007  8:02 PM
E Z PASS! they both play no defense and don't know how to pass. neither is a clutch perfomer during the big momments and will not enhanced their games by playing together.

Bad move on the knicks part! Trade Curry for a defensive player up the middle

Tyson CHandler anyone
The Future. GO KNICKS!
WOODMANnYk
Posts: 22417
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 6/30/2002
Member: #529
USA
12/4/2007  8:13 PM
Posted by bitty41:
Posted by TMS:

yeah, i'm pretty tired of hearing the same stuff from you too... at least we got that in common

You take this stuff way too seriously. Hey I don't mind eating crow for awhile if Zach turns out to be another Marbury disaster then hey im wrong and if he doesn't I'll be happy because I want to see him earn a bit of respect around the league and do well for us. Take note of how I used "earn".

bitty41, point well said on your comment and the ones before from this thread. I just wish knick fans could actually agree and see the very truth with this team.

[Edited by - woodmannyk on 04-12-2007 8:14 PM]
The Future. GO KNICKS!
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
12/4/2007  8:20 PM
by what criteria do you elevate Zach above Marbury, Eddy and Jamal? How have you determined he's any more of a keeper than them?

Fair question

Zach is different from all these guys because he hasn't even been given a chance in NY! Jamal, Marbury, and Eddy were all given opportunities to turn this team around. They were given numerous coaches, teammates, more money, more shots, all while in NY. Marbury; well I know I don't have to tell you about all his golden opportunities. And Jamal and Eddy I think Isiah put these two on a pestals that they didn't belong on and thus they failed. But its not as though I think Eddy and Jamal bring nothing positive to the table its just a matter of recognizing their limitatioins.

IMO I think Zach's problem areas can be corrected. Having more confidence in his teammates and trusting the offensive set could go a long way towards him lowering the turnover numbers and over shooting. Defensively he's never going to be an Oakley type but if he can dig just that much deeper he wouldn't be a great defensive player but he could become a better defnsive player.

So to reiterate:

Eddy and Jamal in not so many words = overrated (at least by our management)

Marbury problems cann't be corrected by a coach, shrink, priest, but only himself. He choose to go about his game the way he always has and its failed miserably. Simple as that.

Zach = more potential then Eddy and Jamal. Just needs some major tweeking in a few areas.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
12/4/2007  8:41 PM
Posted by bitty41:
by what criteria do you elevate Zach above Marbury, Eddy and Jamal? How have you determined he's any more of a keeper than them?

Fair question

Zach is different from all these guys because he hasn't even been given a chance in NY! Jamal, Marbury, and Eddy were all given opportunities to turn this team around. They were given numerous coaches, teammates, more money, more shots, all while in NY. Marbury; well I know I don't have to tell you about all his golden opportunities. And Jamal and Eddy I think Isiah put these two on a pestals that they didn't belong on and thus they failed. But its not as though I think Eddy and Jamal bring nothing positive to the table its just a matter of recognizing their limitatioins.

IMO I think Zach's problem areas can be corrected. Having more confidence in his teammates and trusting the offensive set could go a long way towards him lowering the turnover numbers and over shooting. Defensively he's never going to be an Oakley type but if he can dig just that much deeper he wouldn't be a great defensive player but he could become a better defnsive player.

So to reiterate:

Eddy and Jamal in not so many words = overrated (at least by our management)

Marbury problems cann't be corrected by a coach, shrink, priest, but only himself. He choose to go about his game the way he always has and its failed miserably. Simple as that.

Zach = more potential then Eddy and Jamal. Just needs some major tweeking in a few areas.
That doesn't distinguish Zach from any of the other players. We heard all those things countless times about the other players. Right after each one came to the team, people said to just give them a chance in NY. All they needed was a change of scenery. And for each of them we heard how their problems were correctable. Like: Jamal just needs a good coach or a good mentor to learn from. Larry Brown would be perfect. Teammate Allan Houston would be perfect. Eddy just needs to learn some toughness. Aguire will be perfect. Or Larry will bring out the best in him. We heard about Isiah as a hall-of-fame PG being the ideal person for Marbury to learn from. Then we heard about him being the ideal player for Jamal to learn from. You could rewind to the time of each of their trades and replace Zach's name with Marbury's or Eddy's or Jamal's in just about every one of your sentences. I thought you were going to bring up something unique about Zach.
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
12/4/2007  9:16 PM
That doesn't distinguish Zach from any of the other players.

I said that IMO Zach is more talented then Eddy and Jamal. Before Jamal and Eddy got here it was all just talk about how talented they were and what numbers they could potentially put up one day. Zach has actually shown he's very capable of putting up more than solid numbers. Or do you believe that Jamal and Eddy both have been a shining examples of consistency?

Right after each one came to the team, people said to just give them a chance in NY.

Ookay and Zach hasn't been given a chance. People hated him before he even put on a Knick's uniform so unless you and I have distinctly different ideas of what constitutes giving him a "chance" then I wouldn't see people on here have given him a fair shake.
You could rewind to the time of each of their trades and replace Zach's name with Marbury's or Eddy's or Jamal's in just about every one of your sentences. I thought you were going to bring up something unique about Zach.

Come on Bon Bon your better then this you don't know just like I don't know how Zach would have performed in different situations with different coaches. There's just no way in knowing so me personally I rely on actual events not suppositions or conjecture.
I thought you were going to bring up something unique about Zach.

Here's something unique he's actually good, not someone with "upside", or a developing young talent. He has the skill if that still counts for anything anymore and the talent. The only valid comparsion I could see in this whole bunch is Marbury. Both him and Zach brought a lot of talent and skill but they also brought baggage. Marbury only further established himself as a career loser; Zach is a tbc..............
BlueSeats
Posts: 27272
Alba Posts: 41
Joined: 11/6/2005
Member: #1024
12/4/2007  9:59 PM
Posted by bitty41:
by what criteria do you elevate Zach above Marbury, Eddy and Jamal? How have you determined he's any more of a keeper than them?

Fair question

Zach is different from all these guys because he hasn't even been given a chance in NY! Jamal, Marbury, and Eddy were all given opportunities to turn this team around. They were given numerous coaches, teammates, more money, more shots, all while in NY. Marbury; well I know I don't have to tell you about all his golden opportunities. And Jamal and Eddy I think Isiah put these two on a pestals that they didn't belong on and thus they failed. But its not as though I think Eddy and Jamal bring nothing positive to the table its just a matter of recognizing their limitatioins.

IMO I think Zach's problem areas can be corrected. Having more confidence in his teammates and trusting the offensive set could go a long way towards him lowering the turnover numbers and over shooting. Defensively he's never going to be an Oakley type but if he can dig just that much deeper he wouldn't be a great defensive player but he could become a better defnsive player.

So to reiterate:

Eddy and Jamal in not so many words = overrated (at least by our management)

Marbury problems cann't be corrected by a coach, shrink, priest, but only himself. He choose to go about his game the way he always has and its failed miserably. Simple as that.

Zach = more potential then Eddy and Jamal. Just needs some major tweeking in a few areas.


Bitty, You've got enough people coming at you so I'll get out of the way after saying this.

For my own part, I agree Zach needs more time to prove himself. He's arrived at Team Turmoil, and then he's had family disasters on top of that. This is hardly the best place to judge him.
So if your position is Zach needs more time, I agree.

Having said that, I didn't like him in Portland and from all I've seen of him here he reminds me a lot of Marbury, Eddy and Jamal. Saying he needs a better support cast is kinda like saying Steve Francis needed better support in Houston. It's entirely true on one level, but misses the point on another.

There are certain guys who, in spite of their talent, need to go a long way to become better support players themselves, let alone play the lead role.

----

First order of business is to lose the distractions of Isiah and Marbury, then try to take an inventory of who shows up and leads (and in which direction.) That will tell us a lot about who we should keep.
Page 3 of 4 ‹ Previous 1  2  3  4 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
K nicks need to trade either Curry or Randolph.....
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy