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

Randolph says the knicks shouldnt have traded him.....
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 3 of 4 ‹ Previous 1  2  3  4 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
BlueSeats
Posts: 27272
Alba Posts: 41
Joined: 11/6/2005
Member: #1024
2/12/2009  11:32 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by BlueSeats:
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by BlueSeats:
Posted by subzero0:
Posted by BasketballJones:

Well, we all knew at the time (I think) that trading Randolph and Crawford would make the team worse - the Knicks were not doing that badly at the time, as I recall. I don't think the trade was done to bring in better talent or even better citizens. I thought it all had to do with 2010.

Now, I guess we could argue the merits of the whole 2010 plan, but at least it is a plan, and we should keep it in mind when evaluating Walsh's moves.

So let me get your logic straight. Your saying that by knowingly making the team worse we will look better in the eyes of the free agents we are trying to attract? My next question, WHAT THE HELL WORLD YOU LIVE IN MAN??

Without unloading Zach's contract we'd have no money to offer FA's. Which is worse, difficulty attracting FA's, or the impossibility of signing them?

Unless we get Lebron James we wont get a player better than Zach

If someone else had said this I might engage the debate, but I know you're gonna change your mind every few weeks anyway.

It's not to hard to figure out. What is your opinion on anything--I've never heard one.

I've had plenty of opinions on our players over the years, though I am laying low these days. But WRT to Zach, I said when we acquired him I didn't like his style of play or his contract and thought Lee was the better PF for this team, and I still stand by that assessment.
AUTOADVERT
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
2/12/2009  11:42 PM
Posted by BlueSeats:
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by BlueSeats:
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by BlueSeats:
Posted by subzero0:
Posted by BasketballJones:

Well, we all knew at the time (I think) that trading Randolph and Crawford would make the team worse - the Knicks were not doing that badly at the time, as I recall. I don't think the trade was done to bring in better talent or even better citizens. I thought it all had to do with 2010.

Now, I guess we could argue the merits of the whole 2010 plan, but at least it is a plan, and we should keep it in mind when evaluating Walsh's moves.

So let me get your logic straight. Your saying that by knowingly making the team worse we will look better in the eyes of the free agents we are trying to attract? My next question, WHAT THE HELL WORLD YOU LIVE IN MAN??

Without unloading Zach's contract we'd have no money to offer FA's. Which is worse, difficulty attracting FA's, or the impossibility of signing them?

Unless we get Lebron James we wont get a player better than Zach

If someone else had said this I might engage the debate, but I know you're gonna change your mind every few weeks anyway.

It's not to hard to figure out. What is your opinion on anything--I've never heard one.

I've had plenty of opinions on our players over the years, though I am laying low these days. But WRT to Zach, I said when we acquired him I didn't like his style of play or his contract and thought Lee was the better PF for this team, and I still stand by that assessment.

I didnt like the acquisition either because we didnt need him and I like the synergy that was growing between Lee and Curry.

But each year is a different fluid situation.
RIP Crushalot😞
subzero0
Posts: 21244
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/24/2003
Member: #410
2/12/2009  11:59 PM
The point is the trade was a bad one. Zach Randolph is >>>>> than Tim Thomas. With a player like Zach Randolph and teams out there who get desperate down towards the trade deadline or even in the summer we would have been able to get cap space and get young talent. Whether that young talent be a 1st, 2nd year or even a draft pick. Even if you dont trade Zach right away, its ok because in DAntoni's system he would have looked like a stud and we would have won some more games to make this team atleast look like a somewhat forward moving franchise. Then you move him, in a sign and trade or something. But this was absolutely the worst move management could have done. They traded a 20-10 PF for nothing, ruined the development of our young small forwards, and made this team look unattractive to players we could have otherwise pryed away from their teams. That is why the Knick fans that are thinking two steps ahead never liked that deal. The end result will be us picking up the left over free agents and we start the continuous treadmill once more, of being a annual playoff losers. It will be the 90's all over again except without Ewing.
subzero0
Posts: 21244
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/24/2003
Member: #410
2/13/2009  12:01 AM
I think i will make a thread of that post...
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
2/13/2009  12:38 PM
Everyone knows I've always had a soft spot for Randolph. I understood from the beginning that long-term wise it would have made sense to trade him.

However,

Walsh dropped the ball on this trade. If this was the best the Clipppers were offering I would have moved on and pursued other deals. But trading someone of Randolph's talent for that scrub Tim Thomas and a retired Cuttino Mobley was an atrocious move. Because the Knicks right basically consist of David Lee and co and David Lee isn't even that good. I could understand the deal if the Knicks got back a defensive low post player or received a young up incoming player but Tim Thomas who is not only older but significantly suckier is just bad move imo. Worse case scenario Walsh doesn't make the deal Randolph numbers continue remain 23 and 11 and a team that is desperate to add fire power for playoff time or a team in need of a low post presence offer a deal.
Cosmic
Posts: 26570
Alba Posts: 27
Joined: 3/17/2006
Member: #1115
USA
2/13/2009  12:43 PM
Oh lord, Zach Randolph has a decent game and we're back to wondering if we should have kept him?

The clear cut answer is NO WAY IN HELL. He is a ballhogging bum, he can be a total idiot, a headcase, he kills team chemistry by destroying ball movement and refusing to use his ability to pass. Loves chucking up a jab-step fadeaway brick from 16 feet out in the face of three defenders.

Enough with this clown.

Besides, the reason we lost the Clipper game is because Steve F'in Novak went 8-10FG, Fred Jones 4-5, Gordon 10-16, Thorton 10-19. Harrington and Nate go 3-21 from 3pt range.

Zach Randolph had nothing to do with the loss. It's a win if Harrington isn't an idiot or if we played even a BIT of defense against the other guys.

Grass is greener should be the Knick's fan tagline. I'm sure after we lost to the Warriors there were fans wondering if we should have kept Crawful because he had a decent game against us.

It's really absurd at this point. The trades were done to improve our future. We dumped two low-iq streaky ballhogging players with long contracts. Yet some fans still try to wonder if it could have worked. Been sleeping the past five years? Apparently so because you've forgotten about 400 games worth of evidence that players like that DONT win you games.
http://popcornmachine.net/ A must-use tool for NBA stat junkies!
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
2/13/2009  1:40 PM
Posted by Cosmic:

Oh lord, Zach Randolph has a decent game and we're back to wondering if we should have kept him?

The clear cut answer is NO WAY IN HELL. He is a ballhogging bum, he can be a total idiot, a headcase, he kills team chemistry by destroying ball movement and refusing to use his ability to pass. Loves chucking up a jab-step fadeaway brick from 16 feet out in the face of three defenders.

Enough with this clown.

Besides, the reason we lost the Clipper game is because Steve F'in Novak went 8-10FG, Fred Jones 4-5, Gordon 10-16, Thorton 10-19. Harrington and Nate go 3-21 from 3pt range.

Zach Randolph had nothing to do with the loss. It's a win if Harrington isn't an idiot or if we played even a BIT of defense against the other guys.

Grass is greener should be the Knick's fan tagline. I'm sure after we lost to the Warriors there were fans wondering if we should have kept Crawful because he had a decent game against us.

It's really absurd at this point. The trades were done to improve our future. We dumped two low-iq streaky ballhogging players with long contracts. Yet some fans still try to wonder if it could have worked. Been sleeping the past five years? Apparently so because you've forgotten about 400 games worth of evidence that players like that DONT win you games.


Look at the team now. Because apparently these guys don't have chemistry, chuck up shots, and have a low b-ball IQ to judging by their current record. Any player in this league put in the right situation can win PERIOD!

If it's about the attitude look at player like Stephen Jackson why was he an intergral part of a Championship team?

If it's about low b-ball IQ then how does Antoine Walker have a NBA ring?

If it's about selfish play hell almost every Championship team has at least one player that fits that category.

You think entirely too much within a box where every nice, fundamentally sound, team-oriented players win Championship. But in reality all types of players have won Championships in this league it's all about being in the right place at the right time.
Ira
Posts: 24692
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 8/14/2001
Member: #91
2/13/2009  1:42 PM
Zach is a better player than TT - a much better player. However no one - including us - wanted his contract. The trade was a salary dump. At the time, I don't think anything better was out there.
martin
Posts: 79930
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
2/13/2009  1:47 PM
Posted by bitty41:
Posted by Cosmic:

Oh lord, Zach Randolph has a decent game and we're back to wondering if we should have kept him?

The clear cut answer is NO WAY IN HELL. He is a ballhogging bum, he can be a total idiot, a headcase, he kills team chemistry by destroying ball movement and refusing to use his ability to pass. Loves chucking up a jab-step fadeaway brick from 16 feet out in the face of three defenders.

Enough with this clown.

Besides, the reason we lost the Clipper game is because Steve F'in Novak went 8-10FG, Fred Jones 4-5, Gordon 10-16, Thorton 10-19. Harrington and Nate go 3-21 from 3pt range.

Zach Randolph had nothing to do with the loss. It's a win if Harrington isn't an idiot or if we played even a BIT of defense against the other guys.

Grass is greener should be the Knick's fan tagline. I'm sure after we lost to the Warriors there were fans wondering if we should have kept Crawful because he had a decent game against us.

It's really absurd at this point. The trades were done to improve our future. We dumped two low-iq streaky ballhogging players with long contracts. Yet some fans still try to wonder if it could have worked. Been sleeping the past five years? Apparently so because you've forgotten about 400 games worth of evidence that players like that DONT win you games.


Look at the team now. Because apparently these guys don't have chemistry, chuck up shots, and have a low b-ball IQ to judging by their current record. Any player in this league put in the right situation can win PERIOD!

If it's about the attitude look at player like Stephen Jackson why was he an intergral part of a Championship team?

If it's about low b-ball IQ then how does Antoine Walker have a NBA ring?

If it's about selfish play hell almost every Championship team has at least one player that fits that category.

You think entirely too much within a box where every nice, fundamentally sound, team-oriented players win Championship. But in reality all types of players have won Championships in this league it's all about being in the right place at the right time.

Antoine and Jackson played their parts on the Championship teams but if you really think they were integral parts you are smoking some good stuff. In fact, their respective teams thought they were so integral they got rid of them.
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
SupremeCommander
Posts: 34071
Alba Posts: 35
Joined: 4/28/2006
Member: #1127
2/13/2009  1:50 PM
Posted by OldFan:

Yes, I think it would be very difficult to build a winning team with him as a key component and almost impossible to do it if you're allocating 17.2 million of your salary cap to him. I also think we're more likely to have salary deflation then inflation so that salary is going to look even worse in 2010.

Yes I think Toronto is worse if you removed Bosh and add Randolph and I think Bosh still has potential to improve and I don't think Randolph does.

No I don't think if you have Alonzo in his prime and Randolph as the 2nd best player you have a great team.

You're being pretty selective in how you pick your statistics. His teams HIGHEST win total for the last 4 years is 32 games. Now maybe it was all bad luck - but he also has a reputation for off-court problems and has been traded for garbage twice. So either all the GMS in the league are wrong or you are. I'm going with the GMS.

Good post
DLeethal wrote: Lol Rick needs a safe space
BlueSeats
Posts: 27272
Alba Posts: 41
Joined: 11/6/2005
Member: #1024
2/13/2009  1:54 PM
Posted by bitty41:

Everyone knows I've always had a soft spot for Randolph. I understood from the beginning that long-term wise it would have made sense to trade him.

However,

Walsh dropped the ball on this trade. If this was the best the Clipppers were offering I would have moved on and pursued other deals. But trading someone of Randolph's talent for that scrub Tim Thomas and a retired Cuttino Mobley was an atrocious move. Because the Knicks right basically consist of David Lee and co and David Lee isn't even that good. I could understand the deal if the Knicks got back a defensive low post player or received a young up incoming player but Tim Thomas who is not only older but significantly suckier is just bad move imo. Worse case scenario Walsh doesn't make the deal Randolph numbers continue remain 23 and 11 and a team that is desperate to add fire power for playoff time or a team in need of a low post presence offer a deal.


Bitty, I think its fair to speculate that we would have gotten more if we'd held out, but we also could have gotten worse if he'd gotten injured or his microfractured knees had flared up.

But besides all that, I think Walsh knew he wanted to get rid of Zach for the salary implications (and possibly team chemistry - not sure on that one) and he didn't want NYers to get attached to Zach. As much as we are seeing a minor backlash now while we suck, imagine the tumult there would be if we were deep in the playoff hunt now and he undermined our momentum at the trade deadline. People would be furious that we were finally "getting somewhere" and Walsh undermined it with a trade.

So I think those are some rationales for moving him early. It probably would have made the most sense to trade him even earlier, like over the summer, but perhaps there were even fewer takers then. Or perhaps grandpa was still decorating the new house and dealing with his tongue cancer.
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
2/13/2009  2:10 PM
Posted by sebstar:

Homeboy is averaging 23 a game...he has a right to wolf. Trust me, I understand completely Walsh's [Clyde] motivation and justification [/Clyde] for the deal, but damn, all we could get for a low post stud is Tim Thomas?

I blame the Ultimate Knicks mentality. People get too carried away with devaluing our own players and exalting virtually everyone else that wears a different colored jersey.

We could have at least got a pick, or a mid-level prospect. At least.

i'm pretty sure Donnie did his due diligence & approached just about every team out there for the best possible package to dump Zach's contract... if he could have gotten a pick out of the deal he would have... we were lucky not to have to give up a pick of our own to dump his contract as it is... every trade counter offer involved us giving back a pick in prior trade discussions.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
2/13/2009  2:11 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:
Unless we get Lebron James we wont get a player better than Zach

Amare's better, D Wade's better, Dirk's better, Bosh is better
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
2/13/2009  2:43 PM
Posted by martin:
Posted by bitty41:
Posted by Cosmic:

Oh lord, Zach Randolph has a decent game and we're back to wondering if we should have kept him?

The clear cut answer is NO WAY IN HELL. He is a ballhogging bum, he can be a total idiot, a headcase, he kills team chemistry by destroying ball movement and refusing to use his ability to pass. Loves chucking up a jab-step fadeaway brick from 16 feet out in the face of three defenders.

Enough with this clown.

Besides, the reason we lost the Clipper game is because Steve F'in Novak went 8-10FG, Fred Jones 4-5, Gordon 10-16, Thorton 10-19. Harrington and Nate go 3-21 from 3pt range.

Zach Randolph had nothing to do with the loss. It's a win if Harrington isn't an idiot or if we played even a BIT of defense against the other guys.

Grass is greener should be the Knick's fan tagline. I'm sure after we lost to the Warriors there were fans wondering if we should have kept Crawful because he had a decent game against us.

It's really absurd at this point. The trades were done to improve our future. We dumped two low-iq streaky ballhogging players with long contracts. Yet some fans still try to wonder if it could have worked. Been sleeping the past five years? Apparently so because you've forgotten about 400 games worth of evidence that players like that DONT win you games.


Look at the team now. Because apparently these guys don't have chemistry, chuck up shots, and have a low b-ball IQ to judging by their current record. Any player in this league put in the right situation can win PERIOD!

If it's about the attitude look at player like Stephen Jackson why was he an intergral part of a Championship team?

If it's about low b-ball IQ then how does Antoine Walker have a NBA ring?

If it's about selfish play hell almost every Championship team has at least one player that fits that category.

You think entirely too much within a box where every nice, fundamentally sound, team-oriented players win Championship. But in reality all types of players have won Championships in this league it's all about being in the right place at the right time.

Antoine and Jackson played their parts on the Championship teams but if you really think they were integral parts you are smoking some good stuff. In fact, their respective teams thought they were so integral they got rid of them.

Both of them were key role players I get that you are trying to make a vailant attempt at proving that Randolph could never play for winner but this is just lame argument? I could list numerous and I mean numerous who were part of Championship teams or Finals that with questionable character and low b-ball IQ.

Rasheed Wallace, Dennis Rodman anyone? Or are you prepared to argue against these players not being major parts of their team's title run?
martin
Posts: 79930
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
2/13/2009  2:53 PM
Posted by bitty41:
Posted by martin:
Posted by bitty41:
Posted by Cosmic:

Oh lord, Zach Randolph has a decent game and we're back to wondering if we should have kept him?

The clear cut answer is NO WAY IN HELL. He is a ballhogging bum, he can be a total idiot, a headcase, he kills team chemistry by destroying ball movement and refusing to use his ability to pass. Loves chucking up a jab-step fadeaway brick from 16 feet out in the face of three defenders.

Enough with this clown.

Besides, the reason we lost the Clipper game is because Steve F'in Novak went 8-10FG, Fred Jones 4-5, Gordon 10-16, Thorton 10-19. Harrington and Nate go 3-21 from 3pt range.

Zach Randolph had nothing to do with the loss. It's a win if Harrington isn't an idiot or if we played even a BIT of defense against the other guys.

Grass is greener should be the Knick's fan tagline. I'm sure after we lost to the Warriors there were fans wondering if we should have kept Crawful because he had a decent game against us.

It's really absurd at this point. The trades were done to improve our future. We dumped two low-iq streaky ballhogging players with long contracts. Yet some fans still try to wonder if it could have worked. Been sleeping the past five years? Apparently so because you've forgotten about 400 games worth of evidence that players like that DONT win you games.


Look at the team now. Because apparently these guys don't have chemistry, chuck up shots, and have a low b-ball IQ to judging by their current record. Any player in this league put in the right situation can win PERIOD!

If it's about the attitude look at player like Stephen Jackson why was he an intergral part of a Championship team?

If it's about low b-ball IQ then how does Antoine Walker have a NBA ring?

If it's about selfish play hell almost every Championship team has at least one player that fits that category.

You think entirely too much within a box where every nice, fundamentally sound, team-oriented players win Championship. But in reality all types of players have won Championships in this league it's all about being in the right place at the right time.

Antoine and Jackson played their parts on the Championship teams but if you really think they were integral parts you are smoking some good stuff. In fact, their respective teams thought they were so integral they got rid of them.

Both of them were key role players I get that you are trying to make a vailant attempt at proving that Randolph could never play for winner but this is just lame argument? I could list numerous and I mean numerous who were part of Championship teams or Finals that with questionable character and low b-ball IQ.

Rasheed Wallace, Dennis Rodman anyone? Or are you prepared to argue against these players not being major parts of their team's title run?

the only thing I was pointing out to you was that Antoine and Jackson were not integral parts of their respective Championship teams. Duncan, Shaq, Wade, Parker, Manu were.

Both Wallace and Rodman were questionable characters but both have VERY high bball IQ's IMHO.

What's your point?
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
2/13/2009  3:03 PM
Getting technicals in game deciding situations is high b-ball IQ? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. My point was that ANY PLAYER in the right situation at the right time can be apart of a winning team.
martin
Posts: 79930
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
2/13/2009  3:24 PM
Posted by bitty41:

Getting technicals in game deciding situations is high b-ball IQ? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. My point was that ANY PLAYER in the right situation at the right time can be apart of a winning team.

Agreed. But do you want to make Zbo one of your building blocks? Cause if you kept him, you have zero shot at free agent market until 2011 and would be mediocre forever.
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
BasketballJones
Posts: 31973
Alba Posts: 19
Joined: 7/16/2002
Member: #290
USA
2/13/2009  4:07 PM
Tim Thomas and Harrington suck. Our team still sucks. Walsh has had his chance to turn the team around and blew it.

We should have kept Zach & Zeke & Marbury and won a few more games.


https:// It's not so hard.
BlueSeats
Posts: 27272
Alba Posts: 41
Joined: 11/6/2005
Member: #1024
2/13/2009  4:14 PM
Posted by BasketballJones:

Tim Thomas and Harrington suck. Our team still sucks. Walsh has had his chance to turn the team around and blew it.

We should have kept Zach & Zeke & Marbury and won a few more games.

You mean a few less. We're two wins shy of last years total with 30 games to go.

But I agree overall. In spite of improved chemistry, effort, payroll flexibility and record, nothing has improved.
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
2/13/2009  4:33 PM
Posted by BlueSeats:
Posted by BasketballJones:

Tim Thomas and Harrington suck. Our team still sucks. Walsh has had his chance to turn the team around and blew it.

We should have kept Zach & Zeke & Marbury and won a few more games.

You mean a few less. We're two wins shy of last years total with 30 games to go.

But I agree overall. In spite of improved chemistry, effort, payroll flexibility and record, nothing has improved.

This team is right at the level of the team in 2007 before everything completely fell apart. THE SAME AS THE PAST 10 SEASONS. Flashes of being a good team but ultimately still among the worst.
Page 3 of 4 ‹ Previous 1  2  3  4 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Randolph says the knicks shouldnt have traded him.....
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