Posted by BRIGGS:

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.


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.

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


I'll tell you what--give me a team of Alonzo Mourning in his prime with Zach Randolph at PF with a bunch of guards who defend and I will go to war with that team.

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.

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.

It's just the same old same old. I see no immediate results, so therefore nothing at all has changed. We might as well have kept Zeke, Zach & Marbs.

Posted by bitty41:

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.

First off, you have to go back to a season where Zach wasn't here in order to support Zach because, in fact, the collapse occurred with him here, and probably in no small part as he was having difficulty meshing with his frontcourt partner (Eddy) on and off the court.

Second, you still aren't getting that equal or better performance at less cost and greater flexibility is an improvement.

Posted by bitty41:

Oldfan,

You missed the point which was on it's face was the Tim Thomas/Cuttino Mobley for Zach Randolph was a bad move from a basketball standpoint. Again I'll repeat a basketball standpoint

Second point you missed was that I stated that any player in this league in the right situation at the right time can win. So before you go ballistic because I used Rasheed Wallace and Dennis Rodman's name my only point was that both of those guys have pulled plenty of stupid moves on the court (mainly getting technicals at crucial game situations) but they managed to be apart of successful Championship runs.

Blueseats,

Using your logic: Isiah Thomas was a better coach then Larry Brown? Because after all Isiah got the team 33 wins unlike Larry who was only able to squeeze out 23? The team under Larry won 23 games for numerous reasons besides the coaching just like last year's team won 23 games for numerous reasons besides Zach Randolph. But my point to all of this is that the Knicks have been on this cycle for a few seasons now. I think D'Antoni is doing the best he can with what he has but from one season to the next there will continue to not be much variation in results until Knick's management starts putting teams on the floor that can compete and stops accepting losing (whatever reasons).