With this 20 million dollar figure that's always thrown around..this seems to be a red herring for those that hate Steph. Will 20 mill get us under the cap? Does his salary have anything to do with how the Knicks play now? If he was gone does this amke us a better team? If you don't think he has leadership skills and that's why you want to trade him, please tell me who we're gonna get that is as good and has leadership skills or are we just going to get someone less talented and pick on him too? If Step isn't earning his money...who on the Knicks is? Why is there no heat on JJs ridiculous contract? Is Eddy Curry even performing at 1/4 of the level that Steph is? Again those wanting to sac Steph don't really seem to concerned about that. How about Jamal Crawford? Half the time he scores in the single digits and still chcuks up wild shots. Is he earning his paycheck? And on and on...yet the only person whose head you guys call for is Steph's. If you hate the guy and want hm to go b/c you hate him that's fine but don't disguise it under some concern for his salary.

Posted by djsunyc:

Posted by Bippity10:

but I do think the question of his leadership is valid. If we decide that we don't want him around the kids we have to assume that we are not going to get the same value in return and will probably set ourselves back more in the short run. At that point in time Curry will be our best player and I'm sure the venom will finally turn to him.

i think that's it in a nutshell. we ARE NOT going to get equal value in return talentwise...there's no way. but at the end of the day...long term, it may be addition by subtraction. key phrase is long term. what it comes down to, wherever we go as a franchise, be it this year or 5 years from now, it will rest on frye's and curry's shoulders (if we don't move them). so marbury is really just a piece and when you look at the game in detroit in the 4th quarter...almost an afterthought. he's played so well but man, maybe it's just not in the cards for him. i don't know. and it's tough to say what we can get in return for him but maybe we have to just turn the page and move on. when you bring this up, alot of marbury supporters don't like it. and that's fine b/c he's probably their favorite player. but there's some huge red flags with him, and our loyalty shouldn't be to one guy but to what gets us to the next level. marbs time to show that he can be the guy is running out. and if he's NOT the guy but just a piece, then man, we don't need to be paying $20 mil for just a piece. that's why he's compared to the ai's, kobe's and so forth. b/c with the type of $$$'s he's getting paid, we're not getting big enough returns.

^^^My point exactly. one of them anyway. Is Crawford going to become our reliable scoring option? All while running the offense? Is Crawford a pass-first pg? Is he even a pg?

Ill admit that virtually everyone on the knicks roster dont earn their paycheck, and I antagonize JJ a lot worse than I do marbury. I guess the reason why marburys is talked about is becuase his is the highest plus marbury is the franchise player and gets the most minutes. obviously marburys contract coming off the books wont put us under the cap, and even if it did, who cares about getting under the cap, Zeke has demonstrated that he can add talent while being far over the cap. however if marburys contract were to replaced by a lesser one it would increase flexibilty but that isnt even my main arguement, my arguement primarily is that marbury may not help this team as much as it seems he does. if the knicks get a pass first PG than who will do the scoring you ask? Theoretically the rest of the team would for a change. I really dont see it as being that much of a problem, as long as LB adjusts the SL(crawford,nate,frye,taylo,curr(if used correctly) are all capable of scoring, its not like we have a team full of trevor ariza's who are limited in their ability to score. just becuase marbury will take the ball up court, ignore his open teammates and drive to the basket and score, doesnt mean that someone else couldnt have scored if marbury had simply passed or setup his teamates instead of scoring himself. That is my opinion, now come bippity byshackeandback and killa4luv, rebut me if you dare.

[Edited by - SlimPack on 12-05-2005 9:29 PM]

[Edited by - SlimPack on 12-05-2005 9:31 PM]

Crawford can do no worse than Stephon. Don't know if Craw is ready to run a team full-time but it beats watching Steph dribble the life out of MSG.

When Craw is at 1 we see other levels in Frye besides the Kurt Thomas one. When Craw is at point we see him rolling to the rim and catching alley-oops. When Steph is at point we see him shooting 20 foot jumpers against the shot-clock.

I've never had an issue with Marbury's play so to speak - I knew what we were getting. He's not Jordan. His on court mistakes are negligible considering the rest of the freak show - an assortment of blunders served on a tray of rookies + Crawford.

His salary is also a completely irrelevant point now - getting under the cap is not practically doable for as long as he's going to be here. Addition by substitution, so to speak, is therefore not a tenable option unless you get a high pick or an all-star in return. Of course, thats not to say it wasn't a burden prior to the Taylor trade/JJ signing and other moves which have all but eliminated free agency as even an occasional amusement.

Still, I don't see Marbury winning a championship here - he won't be good enough when the rest of the team gets up to speed. The scenario where we keep him and he remains productive at 32 + years of age seems unlikely considering his early entrance into the league, his reliance on quickness for offensive production, an already detectable decline in atleticism and a history of ankle injuries. The issue is timing - an aspect that goes beyond stocking a warehouse full of assets. It was my major gripe with the Marbury trade from the beginning - with our limited options, how do we surround him with a legitimate contender in a span of 5 years? The risk of being too late means that Marbury's value declines - the team remains mediocre and squanders a major asset. Not trading him amounts to an investment sacrifice - re-investing, on the other hand, allows us to maintain the talent level long-term.

Yet, the risk of trading him too early is that we pass up on his "prime years." The duration of this span depends on your faith in his longevity. Correspondinly, the relative importance of this span depends on the rapid development of our rookies. Currently structured, our team still needs a shooter at 2/3 - but that appears to be a fairly attainable facet. The determining variables are 1) can Curry become dominant?, 2) can Channing become a defensive force, 3) can either or them rebound at a high rate, 4) can Crawford continue to trouble-shoot his errant decision making and learn to defend on the perimeter? 5) can Marbury initiate ball movement in a motion offense and run the break more often? Keep in mind that all of these elements must be accomplished at a peak level in 3 years. Beyond that, I'm not sure Marbury lasts as an effective 2nd option behind Curry. Which means we're left looking for a major contributor instead of perhaps having one already developing - as a result of a Marbury trade.

Obviously, you don't trade him for nothing - that would be another way of wasting an asset. But, keeping your eyes open is the best way to go. In my opinion, its inevitable that we will end up trading Marbury for future building blocks and, in that scenario, it is most likely in our best interest to trade him with haste - before age and productivity render any returns from the initial Marbury trade miniscule.

I don't have much of a problem with Marbury. I get a little angry if it comes down to him only driving in the lane and looking for his shot, but that's really quite inoften. He did it the Boston game b/c Crawford had nothing and Channing wasn't open on the pick and roll plays. Curry was sucking. He had no where else to go but to do it himself. This can't go on all season and I'm sure it wont, but if it does, I can honestly see Allan Houston part II. We have to find a way to reduce Mabury's minutes, b/c I don't think his body can take many more seasons of consistent 42 minute games. I remember last Summer, Briggs made a post about how he heard a rumor that Steph was going to have microfracture knee surgery. I believed it. That's what the wears and tears of the NBA can do for you.

And b/c of this, I really think Isiah and Larry are pushing Jamal and Nate to develop FAST and THIS SEASON, so that they can take some of the ease off Marbury. It's unfortunate for Nate too b/c he's still so young and he has a lot to do, and it seems he needs to ease into it. But the guy is showing progress though, and his minutes are increasing, which is good.

Will Steph be here in 2 or 3 years? I have no fudgin' clue. Does he deserve all this heat he is getting? No. He deserves SOME criticism, just like everyone, but he's taking way too much, and like Ewing and like Allan, I'm pretty sure it's taking it's toll on him. We need to learn from our past mistakes though, and learn that we need to surround these stars with the right players. It seems like they are coming, but it's so slow that by the time they really start coming along, it might be too late for Steph.

The organisation has some serious questions to answer, dealing with Steph. Are the kids going to develop fast enough that they can make a contender fast enough that Steph will still be here in his prime? Or do we want to be fair to ourselves and Steph, maybe send him to a championship contending team for some very high draft picks or some young and upcoming stars that can run with these new legs we got.

One other thing, I just hope the torch doesn't get passed to Eddie and Channing and Jamal too early. I'm talking about the "Lets kill our best players torch." It's bound to eventually happen, but hopefully not when they are just hitting their friggin' primes.

HIs rebounding criticisms are legit. The guy needs to grab more boards. I'm sure it will start, but no reason he can't grab 7 or 8 a game right now.

Sam Dalembert is doing it.

But he's not playing 26 mpg. In the past 4 or 5 games, he's been somewhere in the mid 30s and grabbing 3 boards. The thing is this. One game, he'll grab 8 boards, then the next it will be 0-4. He has to develop some consistency and he needs a forever lasting meanstreak when it comes to crashing the boards.

Posted by Allanfan20:

Sam Dalembert is doing it.

But he's not playing 26 mpg. In the past 4 or 5 games, he's been somewhere in the mid 30s and grabbing 3 boards. The thing is this. One game, he'll grab 8 boards, then the next it will be 0-4. He has to develop some consistency and he needs a forever lasting meanstreak when it comes to crashing the boards.

That's exactly what I said. His overall rebounding is fine but he needs to be more consistent.

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Allanfan20:

Sam Dalembert is doing it.

But he's not playing 26 mpg. In the past 4 or 5 games, he's been somewhere in the mid 30s and grabbing 3 boards. The thing is this. One game, he'll grab 8 boards, then the next it will be 0-4. He has to develop some consistency and he needs a forever lasting meanstreak when it comes to crashing the boards.

That's exactly what I said. His overall rebounding is fine but he needs to be more consistent.

I disagree. His rebounding is simply average (Which isn't good) and being inconsistent is bad. He needs to learn how to go after those boards, and he needs to toughen up. How do you not see that?

With that being said, Dalembert is going to be a defensive beast, and I stand by my "I would trade Marbury for him" proposal.

I'm just argueing b/c it seems that you think his rebounding isn't something to be concerned about even though it is. If you agree with me though, then I am sorry. But I guess we can both just agree that he's a good player, he'll be very good, and right now, it's clear he needs to improve his rebounding and toughness. That's all I'm saying.