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

K nicks need to trade either Curry or Randolph.....
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 4 of 4 « First‹ Previous 2  3  4 
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
joec32033
Posts: 30641
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 2/3/2004
Member: #583
USA
12/4/2007  10:17 PM
Personally I'd rather trade Curry because I believe Zach is a much better player and, let's be honest here, 18 and 11 is better than 16 and 6. And Randolph showed his potential last year-23 and 10.

BUT, I hate Cury and Randolph together so much I would be willing to give up EITHER of them to Sacremento for Ron Artest and Francisco Garcia.

*Randolph/Curry
Lee
Artest
Garcia
*Crawford/Marbury

*=My preference.

looks better than what we have now.



Incoming Players
Francisco Garcia
6-7 SG / SF from Louisville
12.9 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 1.9 apg in 26.6 minutes
Quincy Douby
6-3 SG from Rutgers
4.3 ppg, 1.7 rpg, 0.5 apg in 13.8 minutes
Ron Artest
6-7 SF from St. John's
22.3 ppg, 7.3 rpg, 3.6 apg in 40.0 minutes
Outgoing Players
Nate Robinson
5-9 PG from Washington
8.1 ppg, 2.8 rpg, 1.9 apg in 19.5 minutes
Renaldo Balkman
6-7 SF from South Carolina
3.5 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 0.7 apg in 15.2 minutes
Eddy Curry
6-11 C from Thornwood (HS)
16.6 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 0.6 apg in 31.1 minutes

Or

Incoming Players
Francisco Garcia
6-7 SG / SF from Louisville
12.9 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 1.9 apg in 26.6 minutes
Ron Artest
6-7 SF from St. John's
22.3 ppg, 7.3 rpg, 3.6 apg in 40.0 minutes
Kenny Thomas
6-7 PF from New Mexico
2.6 ppg, 3.9 rpg, 1.1 apg in 16.2 minutes
Outgoing Players
Nate Robinson
5-9 PG from Washington
8.1 ppg, 2.8 rpg, 1.9 apg in 19.5 minutes
Zach Randolph
6-9 PF from Michigan State
18.0 ppg, 11.2 rpg, 1.4 apg in 33.5 minutes


[Edited by - joec32033 on 04 December 2007 22:19]
~You can't run from who you are.~
AUTOADVERT
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
12/4/2007  10:19 PM
First order of business is to lose the distractions of Isiah and Marbury, then try to take an inventory of who shows up and leads (and in which direction.) That will tell us a lot about who we should keep.

We agree 100% on this. I've never deviated from my belief that I wanted to give Zach some more time before denouncing him thats all.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
12/5/2007  7:25 AM
Posted by bitty41:
That doesn't distinguish Zach from any of the other players.

I said that IMO Zach is more talented then Eddy and Jamal. Before Jamal and Eddy got here it was all just talk about how talented they were and what numbers they could potentially put up one day. Zach has actually shown he's very capable of putting up more than solid numbers.
I'm not gonna pick apart everything you said. Like Blue said, you have enough people going at you already. But I have a few comments here: Did you intentionally leave Steph out of the talent discussion? Talent is a bit of a vague word, but before coming to the Knicks I'd rank Steph as more talented than Zach and place Zach somewhere in the middle (2nd or 3rd--not sure) of these 4 players. So again we have another dimension--talent--that doesn't distignuish Zach from the other three.
Or do you believe that Jamal and Eddy both have been a shining examples of consistency?
You're better than that. You don't even need to ask such a question. However, I'll add that Zach has NOT been consistent in any area of the game other than rebounding and some negative areas (turnovers, field goal *attempts*--not necessarily made FGs, low blocked shots).

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 12-05-2007 07:41 AM]
TheGame
Posts: 26658
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/15/2006
Member: #1154
USA
12/5/2007  8:46 AM
Posted by Masterplan:
Posted by TheGame:

The problem is not Zach and Curry (or at least the main problem is not them). Our bigger problem is the 1,2, and 3 spots.

this kind of statement bugs me. our bigs don't share the ball, turn it over too much and play no defense. how are they not at least part of the problem? even if we get kidd bowen and artest to man the 1,2 and 3 we'll still get killed by the easiest pick plays. we'll still go through cold spells on offense when curry isn't performing and zach is trying to shoot through slumps.

this cannot be our frontcourt of the future if we want to win big.

[Edited by - Masterplan on 12-04-2007 1:30 PM]

Curry is virtually unguardable one on one on the block. Zach is a top-10 rebounder and above-average offensive player. Randolph's defense is not that bad. He clearly is not a shot-blocker, but he seems to make decent rotations and stays in front of his man for the most part. Curry is making more of an effort this year in rebounding and blocking shots. He still is below average, but I have seen him fight for rebounds and get key rebounds more this year than in years past. He also has a few key blocks this season. Obviously this frontcourt is weak defensively, but if you have solid defensive players at the 1, 2, 3 and a shot-blocker (like Balkman or a Marion) at the 3 spot, and if our 1,2,3 spots could all shot 3s at a decent percentage, this team could be a solid offensive and defensive unit, with a clear offensive advantage with Curry and Randolph on the blocks. I would be willing to give that team a chance.

For instance, if you put Billups, Hamilton, and Prince on the Knicks, are you telling that a lineup of Billups, Hamilton, Prince, Randolph, and Curry could not win the East? I think they would have a pretty good shot at beating Boston or Cleveland.
Trust the Process
Masterplan
Posts: 21571
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 12/9/2002
Member: #362
12/5/2007  10:05 AM
Posted by TheGame:
Posted by Masterplan:
Posted by TheGame:

The problem is not Zach and Curry (or at least the main problem is not them). Our bigger problem is the 1,2, and 3 spots.

this kind of statement bugs me. our bigs don't share the ball, turn it over too much and play no defense. how are they not at least part of the problem? even if we get kidd bowen and artest to man the 1,2 and 3 we'll still get killed by the easiest pick plays. we'll still go through cold spells on offense when curry isn't performing and zach is trying to shoot through slumps.

this cannot be our frontcourt of the future if we want to win big.

[Edited by - Masterplan on 12-04-2007 1:30 PM]

Curry is virtually unguardable one on one on the block. Zach is a top-10 rebounder and above-average offensive player. Randolph's defense is not that bad. He clearly is not a shot-blocker, but he seems to make decent rotations and stays in front of his man for the most part. Curry is making more of an effort this year in rebounding and blocking shots. He still is below average, but I have seen him fight for rebounds and get key rebounds more this year than in years past. He also has a few key blocks this season. Obviously this frontcourt is weak defensively, but if you have solid defensive players at the 1, 2, 3 and a shot-blocker (like Balkman or a Marion) at the 3 spot, and if our 1,2,3 spots could all shot 3s at a decent percentage, this team could be a solid offensive and defensive unit, with a clear offensive advantage with Curry and Randolph on the blocks. I would be willing to give that team a chance.

For instance, if you put Billups, Hamilton, and Prince on the Knicks, are you telling that a lineup of Billups, Hamilton, Prince, Randolph, and Curry could not win the East? I think they would have a pretty good shot at beating Boston or Cleveland.

most of our disagreements are based on perception (i.e. zach "not that bad" as a defender, eddy "making more of an effort" on D and the boards), so arguing some particulars would be a waste of time. but for what it's worth, as i see it:

this team will be abysmal on defense as long as zach and eddy are each getting 30+ minutes in the frontcourt. thus, eddy and zach are part of the problem. seeing how eddy and zach defend pick plays, i absolutely disagree that hypothetically adding three elite defenders (who can also shoot 3pters reliably) in the backcourt would solve our defensive problems.

i can see this team succeeding with either of those guys playing a big role. but i think committing to both as your starting 4 and 5 is shooting yourself in the foot. when they traded for zach i assumed it had to be a means to get enough assets to make a legit kobe trade package and still be left with a lowpost scorer to pair with him. regardless, one has to be moved.

[Edited by - Masterplan on 12-05-2007 10:07 AM]
Panos
Posts: 30716
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 1/6/2004
Member: #520
12/5/2007  3:59 PM
Posted by bitty41:

MS,

I don't necessarily think some fans are wrong but at the same time with the invention of message boards, 24 access to all things Sports, fantasy leagues coupled with a horrible GM can be a receipe for total insanity among the fanbase. I think some of us have lost our way we don't even care about skill or talent and if we do its like the 4th or 5th priority. Particular Knick fans all we care about is money, money, money, and if a player wants to be well received in NY he better be making close to the bare mininum. Otherwise he better be an MVP candidate. Here we are talking about replacing Curry or Randolph. Hello these are the only two guys who actually have the ability to play with some of the elite players in this league. And what many fans fail to realize is that for most athletes its all situational. Meaning that a player' success depends greatly upon who is coach is, what kind of system is in place, and what players he is surrounded with. Currently our coach is a joke, there is no supporting cast on this team, and system what system. So proposing these trades brings nothing to the table it brings no answers for what lies ahead for the Knicks organization and most importantly it has absolutely no impact in the real world. So in the end proposing these trades are just another form of fantasy basketabll and thats being generous.

But this all just my own 2 cents on the issue.

Bitty, I think you are trying to say that being fiscally conservative with your roster is going to get you nowhere. Well, I disagree. Check out the list of team salaries below:

RANK TEAM TOTAL SALARY
1) New York Knicks $103,100,000
2) Dallas Mavericks $90,900,00
3) Portland Trail Blazers $75,000,000
4) Philadelphia 76ers $70,700,000
5) Minnesota Timberwolves $70,300,000
6) Memphis Grizzlies $68,100,000
7) Indiana Pacers $63,200,000
8) Boston Celtics $63,000,000
9) Sacramento Kings $62,000,000
10) Los Angeles Lakers $61,000,000
11) Orlando magic $60,500,000
12) Milwaukee Bucks $57,000,000
13) Houston Rockets $56,000,000
14) Golden State Warriors $56,800,000
15) Miami Heat $54,200,000
16) New Jersey Nets $54,000,000
17) Seattle SuperSonics $52,000,000
18) Detroit Pistons $51,700,000
19) Chicago Bulls $51,200,000
20) Toronto Raptors $51,000,000
21) Washington Wizards $47,000,000
22) Cleveland Cavaliers $47,000,000
23) San Antonio Spurs $44,500,000
24) Los Angeles Clippers $44,000,000
25) New Orleans Hornets $43,700,000
26) Utah Jazz $43,700,000
27) Denver Nuggets $43,700,000
28) Phoenix Suns $43,100,000
29) Atlanta Hawks $39,000,000
30) Charlotte Bobcats $23,000,000

The only team in that list within 30% of our salary numbers that is a successful team is Dallas,
and they are already a championship ready team. Notice Utah, Phoenix, San Antonio, Detriot, NJ, Houston, Cleveland and Chicago. All successful playoff teams last year, at about half our money.
Spending does not equate to wins. Quite the contrary, I would argue. Having reasonable contracts
on the books allowed Boston to make their all-in moves to acquire their pieces which could get them
to the NBA finals this year. If they had a bunch of bloated contracts, those deals would not have
happened.


[Edited by - panos on 05-12-2007 3:59 PM]
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
12/5/2007  5:10 PM
Bitty, I think you are trying to say that being fiscally conservative with your roster is going to get you nowhere. Well, I disagree

Not really its just that I think some people only think about dollars and cents (not saying that isn't important) but I was just questioning how much people are even care about talent. Both are equally important in my opinion so if a guy can pay off in the long run on the team I don't care that he's making 13 mil. Now I think throwing money down the rat hole for Q's contract, Malik Rose, jared Jefferies, Stephon Marbury, Jerome James are not moves of a successful franchise. And player's with certain numbers you can almost gurantee when they are done with rookie contracts and move on to max time they will be making over the 10 million dollar price range. Thats why guys like Chris Webber are still earning 20 million a year because once many years ago he was putting up psuedo all-star numbers.

Also I don't know if your list is more current or the one on hoopshype but

here's the link for their list: http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm

On this list the Knicks payroll is 88 million with Dallas coming in first at 93 million.
Panos
Posts: 30716
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 1/6/2004
Member: #520
12/5/2007  5:16 PM
All I'm saying, and I think a lot of people are saying, is that you don't want to overpay for talent, as you alluded to with the bunch of players you've listed. Once you lock yourself into overpaying for a player, it limits your flexibility to a) put good talent around them because your salary cap dollars are tied up, b) trade him for value since other teams also know that he's not worth his salary. It's all about production per $. Look at the Spurs. They have a multi-MVP and two other all-star caliber players, plus excellent role players that have delivered on multiple championships. Yet their payroll is low. And they are able to tweek their roster annually to rotate in fresh roll players to complement their core.
Panos
Posts: 30716
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 1/6/2004
Member: #520
12/5/2007  5:18 PM
I'm sure we are not that far apart in what we are saying. It's just a matter of opinion if you think Zach's production is worth $13 MM or not.
At least, that is debattable, unlike Jalen, Malik, Jerome, Francis, and so many others that whose production was worth FRACTIONS of what they were paid, and were merely albatrosses around our team's neck.

[Edited by - panos on 05-12-2007 5:19 PM]
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
12/5/2007  5:29 PM
I'm sure we are not that far apart in what we are saying. It's just a matter of opinion if you think Zach's production is worth $13 MM or not.
At least, that is debattable, unlike Jalen, Malik, Jerome, Francis, and so many others that whose production was worth FRACTIONS of what they were paid, and were merely albatrosses around our team's neck.

It wasn't debateable with Francis, Jerome, Malik, and Jalen anyone could have told Isiah that Francis and Jalen were washed not that even if deserved their contracts to begin with. Malik Rose he must have got that off being a nice guy because he was just a role player his entire career. Big Snacks LOL!

In terms of Zach you bring up an interesting point about whether someone believes Zach's production warrants 13 mil a year. But if you look at the going rate for a 20 and 10 unless his agent is a total putz you can probably get him a 12 to 15 million dollars if he's on a sucky team and up to 20 if he's on a good team. Like it or not that seems to the standard in the current market.
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
12/5/2007  6:34 PM
it's not about the money as much as it's about how players we acquire actually help this team to achieve overall balance & improve over the longterm. how those players fit an overall vision to build a winning franchise. if y'all think Zach fits that vision, that's your call. many of us clearly don't & are sick & tired of these transparent band-aid type solutions with no clearcut longterm vision. enough is enough is enough i can't go on i can't go on no more now. (y'all youngin's don't know nothing about that) but back to the topic at hand. is it too much to hope for this franchise to learn from past mistakes & take a different approach to building a winner after 6 years of ineptitude following the same approach as we are now?
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
Page 4 of 4 « First‹ Previous 2  3  4 
« Reply To Topic
K nicks need to trade either Curry or Randolph.....
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