Posted by nyk4ever:

Posted by nysportsfan11:

Posted by crzymdups:

Posted by Nalod:

Warriors is a good call, but we really don't know just how unlikable he is as a teammate.

Warriors likely would wait until he is waived. Its one thing to take him at the vet min, another to actually pay him 21mil!

Nellie is extremely desperate after losing out on Baron.

Nellie's not desperate. He's only got one more year on his own deal and doesn't plan on re-upping. After this season, he's off to Hawaii.

Isn't that why Nellie would be desperate for one last run? I'm sure he doesn't want his last year to end outside of the playoffs. I would think that Nellie thinks he can get something out of Zach for one year. He could care less what Zach does after his one year with him.

Saying he'd like to add a 20/10 low post scorer is a lot different than saying he'd like to add a headcase/***hole who provides nothing different than a much younger, much more coachable, and at this point just better, Monta Ellis already can't. If you're not a championship caliber team with a solid foundation and don't have a locker room/front office that will shut Marbury's **** down in a heartbeat, you don't even need to bother with the risk. That's why the Knicks don't want to be bothered because the risk outweighs the reward for about 27 teams in the league. The Warriors may be the worst team in the west next year.

[Edited by - nysportsfan11 on 07-09-2008 11:04 AM]

Posted by nysportsfan11:

Saying he'd like to add a 20/10 low post scorer is a lot different than saying he'd like to add a headcase/***hole who provides nothing different than a much younger, much more coachable, and at this point just better, Monta Ellis already can't. If you're not a championship caliber team with a solid foundation and don't have a locker room/front office that will shut Marbury's **** down in a heartbeat, you don't even need to bother with the risk. That's why the Knicks don't want to be bothered because the risk outweighs the reward for about 27 teams in the league. The Warriors may be the worst team in the west next year.

[Edited by - nysportsfan11 on 07-09-2008 11:04 AM]

Believe me NY, I know all this, I know it all too well. I just find it hard to believe that not one team would take Zach since NBA (as well as other pro sport) GM's are obsessed with the terms talent and potential and although Zach is a psychopathic headcase, he has both of those. GM's have displayed they will take that risk in the past. Believe me, if I was a GM, I wouldn't touch Zach with a 10ft pole, but I've seen so many inept GM's make complete bonehead moves and trading for Zach would fit right in that category. I really don't see how a GM wouldn't do it again.

Posted by nyk4ever:

Posted by nysportsfan11:

Saying he'd like to add a 20/10 low post scorer is a lot different than saying he'd like to add a headcase/***hole who provides nothing different than a much younger, much more coachable, and at this point just better, Monta Ellis already can't. If you're not a championship caliber team with a solid foundation and don't have a locker room/front office that will shut Marbury's **** down in a heartbeat, you don't even need to bother with the risk. That's why the Knicks don't want to be bothered because the risk outweighs the reward for about 27 teams in the league. The Warriors may be the worst team in the west next year.

[Edited by - nysportsfan11 on 07-09-2008 11:04 AM]

Believe me NY, I know all this, I know it all too well. I just find it hard to believe that not one team would take Zach since NBA (as well as other pro sport) GM's are obsessed with the terms talent and potential and although Zach is a psychopathic headcase, he has both of those. GM's have displayed they will take that risk in the past. Believe me, if I was a GM, I wouldn't touch Zach with a 10ft pole, but I've seen so many inept GM's make complete bonehead moves and trading for Zach would fit right in that category. I really don't see how a GM wouldn't do it again.

In your original post, you said Nelson would be desperate enough to acquire Marbury. The entire original post was about the Warriors waiting for Marbury to be bought out and then filling Baron's void.

Then you flipped that and responded to my post as if you said Nellie would be desperate to trade for Zach Randolph.

To which I said, there is a big difference between going after a 20/10 low post guy -- Zach -- which was your second point and your first point of being desperate enough to sign Marbury, a headcase who is nothing but an older, less coachable, worse version of Monta Ellis.

Never did I say Zach is untradable. I said your premise that Don Nelson would be eager to wait for the Knicks to waive Marbury and then attempt to outbid teams like San Antonio, Miami, or Boston (teams with real checks and balances in place that wouldn't have to worry about Steph sabotaging their team). Unlike those teams, the Warriors are going nowhere fast, which is part of the reason the Knicks don't want to be bothered because having Steph is not in any way a difference maker for a team bound for the lottery or an 8th seed anyway, whereas he may be an asset to a playoff team looking for a spark off the bench.

[Edited by - nysportsfan11 on 07-09-2008 3:03 PM]

Posted by nysportsfan11:


In your original post, you said Nelson would be desperate enough to acquire Marbury. The entire original post was about the Warriors waiting for Marbury to be bought out and then filling Baron's void.

Then you flipped that and responded to my post as if you said Nellie would be desperate to trade for Zach Randolph.

To which I said, there is a big difference between going after a 20/10 low post guy -- Zach -- which was your second point and your first point of being desperate enough to sign Marbury, a headcase who is nothing but an older, less coachable, worse version of Monta Ellis.

Never did I say Zach is untradable. I said your premise that Don Nelson would be eager to wait for the Knicks to waive Marbury and then attempt to outbid teams like San Antonio, Miami, or Boston (teams with real checks and balances in place that wouldn't have to worry about Steph sabotaging their team). Unlike those teams, the Warriors are going nowhere fast, which is part of the reason the Knicks don't want to be bothered because having Steph is not in any way a difference maker for a team bound for the lottery or an 8th seed anyway, whereas he may be an asset to a playoff team looking for a spark off the bench.

[Edited by - nysportsfan11 on 07-09-2008 3:03 PM]

Yeah NY, I just realized that. I wasn't talking about Marbury in any of my posts, I was talking about Zach. My bad man.

Posted by Michael6835:

If marbury plays like he did in Phoenix, then he can pretty much go anywhere he wants. He was a good player before Brown and Thomas Broke him by trying to change his game. His attitude is terrible, but his skills were top notch. And at 31 he's got at least 4 seasons left.

4 years of what tho is the question... the guy is no longer an elite G but in his mind he still is... until he finally accepts the fact that he may have to take on a lesser role to be on a contending team he'll never be able to contribute to a winning franchise.

i dunno about averaging no 20ppg anymore for him, unless we're talking about him taking just about all the shots on a bad team... even in NY he hasn't been able to do that for a few years... i agree he can still pass the rock & can still knock down shots on the perimeter & in the lane, but i don't see any contending teams out there giving him the reigns to run the point & dominating the ball... i can maybe see him finding a role on a team like the Lakers, but he will be playing a much more minor role than he's used to playing & Kobe will still be the guy w/the ball in his hands most of the time w/Pau, Bynum & Odom getting a lot of touches too... it's up to him if he'll embrace that type of role or continue to be the malcontent he's been for the past several years... it could possibly be his only real way of closing out his career on a high note.

[Edited by - TMS on 07-09-2008 4:58 PM]