WOW. I feel like an ass. Basketball-reference.com is WAYYY smarter than I am.


OK. You guys were right. Maybe I just don't like the Blazers....? hmmm, maybe. Hey, same could be said about the Nets with some of you, and they've been serious contenders for 5 years and counting.

That's obviously not the same as 26/27 years of playoffs, but I'm making a bit of a stretch here, so bare with me.


But let's get back to the original arguement - we can't afford to take 2 steps back in order to make 1 step forward. the Pacers didn't do that when they acquired JO. It was initially VIEWED that way, but as soon as he laced up, those views changed.

We need to continue to move forward. Period. Do we even have a choice?

There is only one path left to us now...

We must have the courage to follow it!

LOLLOL

[Edited by - simrud on 08/02/2005 10:35:51]

I just chimed in...you are so right about the change from 19 to 21 and the humungus change after 25 and there is another leap at 30.

Jayz has a line, "been focused since I said hi to 30"

It's when you realize that it's all mental and not physical.

When your 19, you realize it's all physical.

At 25, you generally put it all together.

That's just my personal experience (35 next year, I can't wait).

I still play competitively, and every year I say, no more...but I'm gonna go one more year because it's all mental at this age.

Knicks Ages:
18 - 20 (all physical skills baby)
Ariza(20) (set case and point)

21 - 24 (wait, if I do it this way, I can be even BETTER?)
Butler(21), Nate(21), Frye (22), Lee (22), Sweets (23) (more strong support)

25 - 27 (I...had...the time of my liiiife, but I never won alot of games)
QRich (25), JCraw (25) [whoa, they are the same age?]

28 - 29 (Let's get busy, tell me what to do, and I'll do it)
TT (28), Marbs (28), MoT (29)

30 and over (this is my last chance, physically, I can't recover as fast, however, mentally, I have the edge if I can just stay on the floor)
Rose (21), JYD (32),

Shows almost over...
Penny (34), h20 (34)

See, it just makes sense.

[Edited by - rvhoss on 08/02/2005 10:46:01]

RV --

YOU'RE 35???

Posted by bobs3304:

^ JO never was given a chance in Portland.


Kwame's been given so many chances it's not even funny.


I don't consider the whole JO deal a step back for Indiana at all. Did they get younger? Yes. Did they take a step back? Nope.

Teams that have the time and money to make a splash in FA and develop their young talent can afford to take steps back. We can't. We have a certain window of opportunity here with Steph and Larry (3 years), and you just can't afford to get younger and worse.

Donnie Walsh obviously knew what he was getting in JO before he traded for him, else why would he take that kind of risk? Dale Davis was a solid player for them. B/c Walsh was and still is a very good evaluator of talent, he had to have known O'neal had the goods.

Whether or not a move like that is VIEWED as taking a step back at first is not the issue. It's the end result that counts. JO came in immediately and made his presence felt. That's not a step back at all...that's a step forward.

I'm not seeing Kwame as having that kind of impact at all. The kind of trade(s) we need to make are smart, economically smart ones. No Tim Thomas for Finley trades. That would be a disaster. If we're gonna do something like that, AT LEAST dump one of our PF's in the process...

Agreed about the Finley part. But what does Finley have to do with Kwame?

As for the Pacers: how does disassembling an NBA Finalist and going with a youth movement not count as a step back? After the Finals, Larry Bird stepped down from the coaching position in the Pacers organization, saying he thought the Lakers would go on to win the championship a few more years and he was retiring. Walsh traded for JO and hired Isiah. The next year they traded Jalen Rose for Brad Miller and Ron Artest. At the time of the trade, people thought the Bulls were closer than ever to the playoffs and the Pacers suddenly went from the oldest team in the league to the youngest, despite the fact that they were "built" around aging star Reggie Miller and their window was "closing." For two years, they were a young, exciting team coached by Isiah Thomas and helped by vet Reggie - but never making it out of the first round of the playoffs.

This argument that the Pacers didn't take a step back is ridiculous. They took a calculated step back and brilliantly rebuilt very quickly. Their rebuilding had nothing whatsoever to do with cap room, in fact they were so far over the cap that they had to give Brad Miller away for nothing just to be able to afford to resign JO.

The Pacers are a nice blueprint to follow for turning an aging team into a young powerhouse. They were never once under the cap. They were tied down by RMiller's deal, Austin Croshere's deal and the fact that they had to pay JO almost immediately. Then they had to pay Artest. It cost them BMiller, but they drafted well and got Tinsley and Jones and now Granger. they added Stephen Jackson in a trade for Al Harrington. It's no surprise that Isiah is trying to do something similar with the Knicks - after all he was very much involved in Indiana's quick turn around.

[Edited by - crzymdups on 08/02/2005 11:01:33]

Again. You're not getting what my point is.


Could the JO trade have been even INTENDED as a step back. Who knows - it's possible. But was it - NOPE. Jo came in IMMEDIATELY and contributed. Whether or not their overall plan was to quickly rebuild is not something I can answer - obviously you have. I'm talking about that one trade alone.

I can understand what you mean by copying the Pacers' blueprint. That was a good point. But they had the fortune of making the trade for JO, making the trade for Artest... do you see where I'm going with this? The Pacers and Donnie Walsh made almost BRILLIANT moves. Isiah has done sub-par so far. The Marbury deal was good. Not great, but good. The Crawford deal - n/a. It awaits to be seen if Crawford can actually live up to his contract, if even his potential as a player. Also, the Pacers had Reggie as their cornerstone for years. Marbury has been with the Knicks for under 2 years. We have no leader.

The 2 scenarios have their similaries and differences. The battleplan is the same, but the armies are different...

His first year at INDY, he put up KT numbers 13/10...while, that's a contribution, still nothing like his 20/10 these days...it's really about being the focus of the offense and nothing more.

Can they shoulder the load?

Frye, while talented, still needs another year or two to shoulder the scoring load (i.e. go down court, give it to frye)

Now, it's Marbs, bring it down, if you can't score right away, feed the post, then swing it and after the extra pass, hit the open shot.

RV - you make it sound so simple. It will NEVER be that convenient, b/c if it was, they would've done that last year.

13 and 10 is All-Star numbers, no matter how you look at it.


And it's not the same general, Donnie Walsh was the general along with Larry. Isiah was the cournel. LOL.

Anyway, don't compare Indiana to NY. Yes, that KT trade was great, but it's all based on potential and not substance (yet). The Artest and JO trades made the Pacers what they are today. Can you say that about Marbury, Crawford, and Q? Def. not yet, but hopefully in the future - although I doubt it. Defense wins games...period. Players play the games, not coaches. Some guys just can't play D - face it. Larry couldn't get Timmy to play D in Philly and shipped his ass out. And that's gonna change?

thats the whole point... you have too look at it all. What makes Walsh a great GM is he sticks to a philosophy and does his due dilligence. Sometimes it works out, other times it doesnt. Did Donnie not have enough coffe the day he pulled the trigger on Bender and Croshere? No, the same guy that made the great JO/Artest made the Bender/Croshere moves. They were all good moves at the time. Some worked out great others didnt... catching on yet?

Also...

please explain; how is going from the finals to a first round exit not taking a step back?

Dolan has, and Zeke has. MoT is still to be decided.

Posted by fishmike:

Maybe Dolan should instruct Isiah to only take risks that pay off.

You're not paying attention...again.


I'm talking EXCLUSIVELY about the JO trade. Obviously, the fact that he went 13 and 10, and being the player he is, he didn't single-handedly cause that playoff slide. Are you saying substitute him for Dale Davis and they would've done better?

It's true. When evaluating a GM, you have to look at every move he's made. But I'm not evaluating Donnie Walsh. I'm evaluating 2 moves in particular, and how they made the Pacers what they are today. (It's too bad they had to give up on Brad).

When I look at Isiah's top moves, (Marbury, Crawford, and now Q Rich), I shrug my shoulders and say, offensively, great moves. Defensively -- eh...not so much. Potential to play defense is one thing if you're Trevor Ariza. But for Marbury and Crawford - they can improve in certain areas, but it won't make them good defenders. Trevor actually has a chance to develop into the real deal (defensively) b/c he's focused on it from the get-go. If everyone buys into Larry's system, however, they'll be buying into team defense. And in order to have good team defense, you have to have ALL player buying into that...which just isn't happening. When has Larry EVER had every player buy into his system. With that said, Larry has also had defensive stoppers in Detroit and Philly. That's a luxury we DON'T have. So while I do think Marbury, Crawford, and even Timmy might be able to buy into the team defense concept, there will undoubtedly be some others that just won't be able to. (in fact it will probably be those 3 that have the hardest time). So what do you do? You go out there and make smart moves to bring in players that can flat out play defense. The David Wesleys, Matt Harprings, and Eric Snows of the NBA. Do you catch my drift?