Posted by subzero0:
Posted by GKFv2:
Posted by subzero0:
Posted by GKFv2:
Posted by subzero0:
Ahh so hopefully now everyone is starting to realize exactly what Walsh is doing to the Knicks. Is it starting to hit you guys yet? Still need more clues guys? We are being turned into perennial playoff losers... just like the Pacers.
That's right. We should have stuck to your brilliant plan of keeping Zach and Crawford and making a run to the Finals. What fools we are!
Where do you read that I wanted to keep Zach and Crawford?? Get your facts straight! I wanted Walsh to make smart moves with the players by demanding picks in any trades possible.
Next time you want to shoot of at the mouth you should go read up on my past posts dude.
[Edited by - subzero0 on 08-05-2009 4:58 PM]
Because those players were subsequently traded for picks, right? You know their value, right? You were very upset when Randolph was traded. You said he had way more value than what we got. Well I guess if you consider Quentin Richardson way more value then that's all fine and dandy. I guess Crawford netted more value than Al in Acie Law and Speedy Claxton.
So what?
If they're as bad as you believe than keep them and demand that any team that wants them has to include a pick. If there are no takers as you are ascertaining then fine, keep them on the team and watch the team sink. Then, because we hadn't moved any of our picks in the meanwhile, when we finally are bad enough we try to hit the jackpot in the lottery. That GKF is how you build a championship contender. Do you want to know how to build a year in year out loser? Make idiotic trades, sign guys that arent championship level players and watch every year as teams defeat you in the playoffs. Resting your hopes on trying to sign that big player is a stupid idea. Trying to land a big name in FA without a young drafted star doesnt work. It just doesnt work.
[Edited by - subzero0 on 08-05-2009 5:08 PM]
Wait, what? So basically you wanted to keep guys like Zach around for no apparent reason other than to lose and get a draft pick. How does that make more sense than trading him and his terrible contract for cap space? Build through the draft. That would be pretty hard considering we would take a major step back without a draft pick next year. So you'd be okay with losing for the next 5 years at the minimum in order to accumulate draft picks and hope you strike it rich with one of them and they become a star? How is that going to work? How is that a better plan than creating cap space by trading terrible players? And how exactly is "demanding" a draft pick for crap going to get you a draft pick? I'm really not following.
Make idiotic trades? We haven't made any.
Sign guys that aren't championship level players? That's great. Who exactly is signing here to win a title? I think they're looking elsewhere at the moment.
Defeats us in the playoffs? Well, that would be a step up from where we are now.
The bottom line is 2010 is one summer away and already I see negative nancy's crying about the plan sucking and doom and gloom. It is what it is. Why can you not wait to see what happens first before you blast everything? We tried the "cap space doesn't matter" stuff for 14 years. 1996 got us Allan Houston. I think that was a pretty good signing. 2010 can get us someone even better. You and I don't know what will happen. As for this "young star" to attract a FA, there may be one on the team but the bottom line is anyone is coming here because they want to play here and they want a chance to win. There is no difference between draft players and losing and hoping to sign someone and having a mix young players and veteran expiring deals and hoping to sign someone. It's the same exact thing. The team will still be a loser.
Thank you, Rick Brunson.