sebstar wrote:

orangeblobman wrote:

sebstar wrote:

orangeblobman wrote:What is this garbage? Zach Randolph is so great all of a sudden?

Let me call your attention to something called reality, or facts if you will:

Memphis is 24-19, with a 55% win percentage. That's nothing incredible nor awesome and there is a lot of season left. They're not 40-5, man.

Second, Zach Randolph has so many frickin' awful seasons as leader under his belt that it's comical to take this 24-19 record and say "oh, you're redeemed, you're a winner now"

give me a break. look at Portland's records from his years there and then the Knicks and then the Clippers and then tell me honestly that this 24-19 stretch redeems him. Give break to me, get heck out of town, good night.

I dont see anybody engaging in hyperbole and proclaiming him a "winner" or "incredible" ...just disputing his loser tag

Maybe not incredible, but a winner? What is the opposite of a loser? If he's not a loser, he's a winner, right? He's not in some neutral space is he?

The way he's being typed about is that he's more than neutral, more than mediocre. It's like he's redeemed, say it ain't so, Mr. Seb?

Its not so much about Zach Randolph, as it is the culture of Knick fans, who have never seen a player in orange and blue they didnt want to ruthlessly criticize.

Zach has been a really good player who has played on some lousy teams and made questionable decisions over the years. But he's always been really good. Now if that makes him a loser to you, then go ahead and be my guest.

But for now we'll watch this "loser" drop 20-10 on the heads of Tim Duncan and Dwight Howard as Memphis makes power moves through the west.

Fair. But he's still not a winner to me. Not yet, anyway.

It's just that the Knicks fanbase has so much energy and passion that, when you contrast it against what we've had, it's easy to see why the fanbase crushes, absolutely crushes, anyone that fails here.

These guys, Lee, Chandler, Hill, even Nate, they have a pass, for now, because they were sort of birthed into the situation, kind of like the fans. It's like they're both fan and player alike. The next three seasons should be interesting.

sebstar wrote:

orangeblobman wrote:

sebstar wrote:

orangeblobman wrote:What is this garbage? Zach Randolph is so great all of a sudden?

Let me call your attention to something called reality, or facts if you will:

Memphis is 24-19, with a 55% win percentage. That's nothing incredible nor awesome and there is a lot of season left. They're not 40-5, man.

Second, Zach Randolph has so many frickin' awful seasons as leader under his belt that it's comical to take this 24-19 record and say "oh, you're redeemed, you're a winner now"

give me a break. look at Portland's records from his years there and then the Knicks and then the Clippers and then tell me honestly that this 24-19 stretch redeems him. Give break to me, get heck out of town, good night.

I dont see anybody engaging in hyperbole and proclaiming him a "winner" or "incredible" ...just disputing his loser tag

Maybe not incredible, but a winner? What is the opposite of a loser? If he's not a loser, he's a winner, right? He's not in some neutral space is he?

The way he's being typed about is that he's more than neutral, more than mediocre. It's like he's redeemed, say it ain't so, Mr. Seb?

Its not so much about Zach Randolph, as it is the culture of Knick fans, who have never seen a player in orange and blue they didnt want to ruthlessly criticize.

Zach has been a really good player who has played on some lousy teams and made questionable decisions over the years. But he's always been really good. Now if that makes him a loser to you, then go ahead and be my guest.

But for now we'll watch this "loser" drop 20-10 on the heads of Tim Duncan and Dwight Howard as Memphis makes power moves through the west.

Power moves? You think Zach Randolph and Memphis are going to make noise in the Playoffs? I don't. Grizzlies will likely get swept so what's the big deal here with missing Randolph? You're basically saying you would rather have Randolph and that losing culture still here and have no chance at improvement through free agency.

bitty41 wrote:It's insane how much is riding on a player whose not even with the Knicks franchise. You re-working your entire roster for a chance at one player who hasn't yet to win a NBA title is just mind-boggling to me.

they're not restructuring for just one player... this is to give the team options to target other guys as well... also gives the team flexibility to re-sign guys like Lee if they decide to do so... why y'all consistently try & make this a "Lebron or bust" situation is beyond me... Walsh has been public that this is not the case many times.

holfresh wrote:

TMS wrote:

bitty41 wrote:It's insane how much is riding on a player whose not even with the Knicks franchise. You re-working your entire roster for a chance at one player who hasn't yet to win a NBA title is just mind-boggling to me.

they're not restructuring for just one player... this is to give the team options to target other guys as well... also gives the team flexibility to re-sign guys like Lee if they decide to do so... why y'all consistently try & make this a "Lebron or bust" situation is beyond me... Walsh has been public that this is not the case many times.

Confidence in the regime will fold if they don't land LeBron..They bought themselves 2 years by saying it's about 2010...Let's face it...we are a 30-35 win team even with David Lee playing out of his mind...Nothing has changed in terms of wins since Isiah was here, just optimism about the future..That's because of 2010...

yes, the goal is 2010, but it's not just for Lebron James... of course Knick fans are hopeful that Lebron comes here & will be severely disappointed if he doesn't, that's to be expected... but the longterm future of this team is better served by having flexibility w/the cap to make moves than by holding onto guys like Zach & Jamal... at best we would have been a bottom seed in the playoffs with those guys on the roster we had last year & this year, & we also don't have a promising young prospect like Jordan Hill if we hadn't made those trades either... plus it's not likely D Lee would have shown the improvement in his game that he did if Zach & Jamal had stuck around because those 2 would be taking away a big chunk of his shot attempts... we can play all the what if's & coulda been scenarios all day long, but the fact remains it was the right thing to do to trade Zach & Jamal when we did.

WindsorPl wrote:Zach has Rudy Gay, OJ Mayo and Marc Gasol as a supporting cast in Memphis. They must have something to do with the winning record. Or is it just Zach?

Not to take anything away from Mayo, Gasol, and Gay but last year that same core was in place and they won 24 games for the entire season. What other conclusion should people draw from the addition of Zach Randolph. He's clearly not a role player leading the team in rebounding/scoring and his own teammates consider him their leader so why wouldn't a person think he's a big reason why Memphis is winning this season.

TMS wrote:

sebstar wrote:

bitty41 wrote:Memphis won 24 games last season with OJ Mayo, Marc Gasol, and Rudy Gay. To argue that Zach (the team's leader) isn't a huge part of their turnaround is kind of absurd. Reading some of the comments on this thread is why I'm happy Zach isn't in NY because this era of Knick fans will never appreciate someone who isn't Lebron or Kobe.

I completely agree. Knick fans are gossip girls and haters. One or two bad games or missteps and a player is an idiot, a bonehead, and a loser and must be traded at once for practically anything another GM is willing to give up. Age, stature, and talent never matter.

i think Zach is probably the single biggest reason why MEM is playing so well this year... but we still needed to trade him because of his contract... there are better players than him available in free agency this offseason that the Knicks want to target.

I agree. Zach is doing in Memphis what I think Zeke envisioned him doing when he traded for him.

TMS wrote:

holfresh wrote:

TMS wrote:

bitty41 wrote:It's insane how much is riding on a player whose not even with the Knicks franchise. You re-working your entire roster for a chance at one player who hasn't yet to win a NBA title is just mind-boggling to me.

they're not restructuring for just one player... this is to give the team options to target other guys as well... also gives the team flexibility to re-sign guys like Lee if they decide to do so... why y'all consistently try & make this a "Lebron or bust" situation is beyond me... Walsh has been public that this is not the case many times.

Confidence in the regime will fold if they don't land LeBron..They bought themselves 2 years by saying it's about 2010...Let's face it...we are a 30-35 win team even with David Lee playing out of his mind...Nothing has changed in terms of wins since Isiah was here, just optimism about the future..That's because of 2010...

yes, the goal is 2010, but it's not just for Lebron James... of course Knick fans are hopeful that Lebron comes here & will be severely disappointed if he doesn't, that's to be expected... but the longterm future of this team is better served by having flexibility w/the cap to make moves than by holding onto guys like Zach & Jamal... at best we would have been a bottom seed in the playoffs with those guys on the roster we had last year & this year, & we also don't have a promising young prospect like Jordan Hill if we hadn't made those trades either... plus it's not likely D Lee would have shown the improvement in his game that he did if Zach & Jamal had stuck around because those 2 would be taking away a big chunk of his shot attempts... we can play all the what if's & coulda been scenarios all day long, but the fact remains it was the right thing to do to trade Zach & Jamal when we did.

It's great that DLee has finally showed up to the dance...It great to also have flexibility..I'm all for that...I'm glad that Dolan has finally come around..And please let's not kid ourselves..It's Dolan, not Walsh...But it's all pointless it we give Lee 12-14 mil per to stay here and still win 30-35 games isn't it...It's LeBron or bust in my opinion for this regime...They set it up that way...Zach is a player with heart and sad to see him go but we needed the space, it was a good move, I think?...

bitty41 wrote:

TMS wrote:

sebstar wrote:

bitty41 wrote:Memphis won 24 games last season with OJ Mayo, Marc Gasol, and Rudy Gay. To argue that Zach (the team's leader) isn't a huge part of their turnaround is kind of absurd. Reading some of the comments on this thread is why I'm happy Zach isn't in NY because this era of Knick fans will never appreciate someone who isn't Lebron or Kobe.

I completely agree. Knick fans are gossip girls and haters. One or two bad games or missteps and a player is an idiot, a bonehead, and a loser and must be traded at once for practically anything another GM is willing to give up. Age, stature, and talent never matter.

i think Zach is probably the single biggest reason why MEM is playing so well this year... but we still needed to trade him because of his contract... there are better players than him available in free agency this offseason that the Knicks want to target.

See TMS I appreciate your response because yea you wanted him gone because of his contract but you still can acknowledge that he's doing work in Memphis.

if Zach's contract was expiring this year i would not have made that trade for Tim Thomas & Mobley... value wise we got crap in return & Zach has always been a good player throughout his career... i didn't much care for his attitude at times but that wasn't a deal breaker for me, nor did i ever place no loser labels on the guy, same for Jamal... always thought both those guys could contribute in the right situation... our situation was cancerous from the very beginning... Marbury's presence here was the biggest culprit if u ask me.

because of the 2010 max year on Zach's contract & the fact that i never thought he & Eddy Curry would ever work well together on the same team, i opposed the trade that brought him here from the very beginning... take away his contract year in 2010 & if Eddy Curry was playing the way he was playing now at the time, i'd have welcomed Zach with open arms... too bad we didn't trade Eddy Curry & Fishlips right after we got Zach.