MS wrote:Let's worry about the Knicks and keep something in perspective.

The past 12 years
Nets 432 wins 43 playoff victories
Knicks 408 wins 3 playoff victories

Aside from stating the obvious here, we struggled to beat the Nets every time we played them last year, we improved but they improved more with Johnson, a healthy Lopez and some added bench depth.

The Knicks are and will be a ****ing embarrassment till they accomplish something.

MS wrote:
We have guys like Melo and Amare who always talk tough, but then forget to play defense, pass the ball come in out of shape. So until we win something like a ****ing championship we are still one of the worst oganization in the NBA.

Right, WE need to win a ****ing chip or we are the worst organization in the NBA. The Nets just need to move, sign three or four starpuchs, and maybe win more than 30 games and VOILA! Instant league credibility! That Dr J was something when he won his chip huh? Oh wait, sorry, wrong team!

MS wrote:The Giants actually are one of the top franchises in the league and have won titles in the 80's 90's and 2000's. The Knicks can't make that claim. It's one of the big reasons our team often follows our owners lead. Being concerned with what's happening with other teams or what the newspapers are writing instead of taking care of the house.

Nice, you select the last 12 years for Nets/Knicks comparisons and then show 40 years of history for another comparison. Brilliant.
Good job on skipping the '90's for the Knicks.

Dolan's concerned with the Nets? Really, that must be why he has IT stuck to his gonads?

If you can refute anything that I mentioned, please do? Unfortunately you can't. I brought up something very simple. Right now there isn't a lot of difference btw the two teams. Everyone around here acts like the Knicks are some great organization, but we haven't won a championship in 40 years. Every year ESPN, SI, CNN objectively looks at the team in place and makes a spot on predication about who this team is and where they will end up. Fans like yourself, bitch and moan and bring up useless information.

Facts are facts. We got swept two years ago and and have one playoff victory to show for all our stars. Effectively running an organization isn't that difficult. The Knicks have made some strides the past couple of years however they are still considered an embarrassing franchise by many. For the past 10-12 years they have been one of the worst run, embarrassing teams in the all of sports. They have started to right the ship, but having massive sex scandals, 20 win teams, overpaid players that couldn't about anything, but themselves has been a hallmark of the past decade.

No one should care about the Nets. And Dolan is concerned with just about everything, what he's done with reporters is downright shameless. The Lin smearing is typical low class NY KNICKS. I think over a decade of **** isn't a small sample size. Citing the Ewing days are all well and good that was a great time in this franchises history, but it's a long time ago. You can't live on 70's 90's forever, if you're a good organization you rebuild and reload. It's time for this team to achieve something other than talking a good game.

I refuted each of your points and your overly selective use of time to fit your argument that the Nets are somehow on equal footing with a Knicks franchise that's won two chips and has dominated NYC basketball for the better part of the 40 years you're bitching about.

You offer nothing in response except, "so there".

You shat on my team and downgrade it because they haven't won a chip in 40 years while talking up a franchise that hasn't won shee-hit (read that slowly) ever, and couldn't draw flies when they were going to the Finals in the decade past.

The Jets at least won. The Mets at least won. The Nets have won nothing.

I can understand the frustration of dealing with the past decade of IT and Marbles and Dolan futility. I lived through it too. It still wouldn't make me believe that anyone but the most brain dead Nets fan would want to hold up his goofy franchise to mine.

jrodmc wrote:MS

I refuted each of your points and your overly selective use of time to fit your argument that the Nets are somehow on equal footing with a Knicks franchise that's won two chips and has dominated NYC basketball for the better part of the 40 years you're bitching about.

You offer nothing in response except, "so there".

You shat on my team and downgrade it because they haven't won a chip in 40 years while talking up a franchise that hasn't won shee-hit (read that slowly) ever, and couldn't draw flies when they were going to the Finals in the decade past.

The Jets at least won. The Mets at least won. The Nets have won nothing.

I can understand the frustration of dealing with the past decade of IT and Marbles and Dolan futility. I lived through it too. It still wouldn't make me believe that anyone but the most brain dead Nets fan would want to hold up his goofy franchise to mine.

Jets in 1968
Mets in 1969 and 1986
Knicks in 1970 and 1973
NEW YORK NETS in 1974 and 1976

Not seeing a whole of

Knicks franchise that's won two chips and has dominated NYC basketball for the better part of the 40 years you're bitching about.

Knicks Legend of Clyde and co. is the soul of the franchise and without it you have one Ewing Era that was a nice run. Nets made finals back to back but never captured the fan base of NY.

Nets ABA with Dr J cannot compare to Knicks of that era but I was there and it was wonderful. I was there for both (knicks and New York Nets). NY york Hoops were the real deal then.

Dr J was the "Magic/BIrd/Jordan/Lebron" for those three years in that league.

Times were different then.

LIke it or not, the city is up for grabs.

Knicks for 40 years have been "the Team" but one can say its not build on excellence. Its built because the NEW JERSEY Nets have been pathetic.

They won't be going forward.

Nalod wrote:OBM!

Nalod wrote:

infinitilov100 wrote:

Nalod wrote:OBM!

OWM!

OWM?

Orange Whore Man?

jrodmc wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Nalod wrote:

jrodmc wrote:MS

I refuted each of your points and your overly selective use of time to fit your argument that the Nets are somehow on equal footing with a Knicks franchise that's won two chips and has dominated NYC basketball for the better part of the 40 years you're bitching about.

You offer nothing in response except, "so there".

You shat on my team and downgrade it because they haven't won a chip in 40 years while talking up a franchise that hasn't won shee-hit (read that slowly) ever, and couldn't draw flies when they were going to the Finals in the decade past.

The Jets at least won. The Mets at least won. The Nets have won nothing.

I can understand the frustration of dealing with the past decade of IT and Marbles and Dolan futility. I lived through it too. It still wouldn't make me believe that anyone but the most brain dead Nets fan would want to hold up his goofy franchise to mine.

Jets in 1968
Mets in 1969 and 1986
Knicks in 1970 and 1973
NEW YORK NETS in 1974 and 1976

Not seeing a whole of

Knicks franchise that's won two chips and has dominated NYC basketball for the better part of the 40 years you're bitching about.

Knicks Legend of Clyde and co. is the soul of the franchise and without it you have one Ewing Era that was a nice run. Nets made finals back to back but never captured the fan base of NY.

Nets ABA with Dr J cannot compare to Knicks of that era but I was there and it was wonderful. I was there for both (knicks and New York Nets). NY york Hoops were the real deal then.

Dr J was the "Magic/BIrd/Jordan/Lebron" for those three years in that league.

Times were different then.

LIke it or not, the city is up for grabs.

Knicks for 40 years have been "the Team" but one can say its not build on excellence. Its built because the NEW JERSEY Nets have been pathetic.

They won't be going forward.

The city is up for grabs like the Jets can take fans from the Giants and the Mets can take fans from the Yankees.

Like I previously stated, the only fans the Nets will take or people who felt Lin was the death blow and possibly people who are just getting into the game.

Personally, I'm not worried at all. Williams, Johnson, Wallace, Lopez. Williams is legit, Johnson may have the worst contract in the NBA, Wallace is nothing special and Lopez is a C who can score but can't do much of anything else.

Yeah we've had tons of bad contract but Humphries for 2 years and $24 million?

The Knicks are the better team. No doubt the Nyets being in Brooklyn will spice up the rivalry but that's it.

NALOD -- Seriously. The ABA. You are comparing the ABA to the NBA. SMH.

You forgot to mention who won the CFL Grey Cup. Or the winner of the International League. And Pele! You forgot about Pele! I remember when soccer owned NYC!

You'd do better to compare the ABA whose economics were being squeezed by the NBA to the AFL football that eventually merged with the NFL. The NBA was doing its best to kill the ABA and almost succeeded. THe merger of 4 teams in was a compromise to years of litigation from unsavory practices by both leagues. The 6million entrance fee hurt the Nets big time (they were underfunded) but The Nuggets did well and we all know what San Antonio grew up to be. They had some good years early on with George "Ice man" Gervin.

Not comparing the two. History is what it is.

CFL and the International League are poor examples. Funny examples though!

how'd that honey thing turn out?

jrodmc wrote:

Nalod wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Nalod wrote:

jrodmc wrote:MS

I refuted each of your points and your overly selective use of time to fit your argument that the Nets are somehow on equal footing with a Knicks franchise that's won two chips and has dominated NYC basketball for the better part of the 40 years you're bitching about.

You offer nothing in response except, "so there".

You shat on my team and downgrade it because they haven't won a chip in 40 years while talking up a franchise that hasn't won shee-hit (read that slowly) ever, and couldn't draw flies when they were going to the Finals in the decade past.

The Jets at least won. The Mets at least won. The Nets have won nothing.

I can understand the frustration of dealing with the past decade of IT and Marbles and Dolan futility. I lived through it too. It still wouldn't make me believe that anyone but the most brain dead Nets fan would want to hold up his goofy franchise to mine.

Jets in 1968
Mets in 1969 and 1986
Knicks in 1970 and 1973
NEW YORK NETS in 1974 and 1976

Not seeing a whole of

Knicks franchise that's won two chips and has dominated NYC basketball for the better part of the 40 years you're bitching about.

Knicks Legend of Clyde and co. is the soul of the franchise and without it you have one Ewing Era that was a nice run. Nets made finals back to back but never captured the fan base of NY.

Nets ABA with Dr J cannot compare to Knicks of that era but I was there and it was wonderful. I was there for both (knicks and New York Nets). NY york Hoops were the real deal then.

Dr J was the "Magic/BIrd/Jordan/Lebron" for those three years in that league.

Times were different then.

LIke it or not, the city is up for grabs.

Knicks for 40 years have been "the Team" but one can say its not build on excellence. Its built because the NEW JERSEY Nets have been pathetic.

They won't be going forward.

The city is up for grabs like the Jets can take fans from the Giants and the Mets can take fans from the Yankees.

Like I previously stated, the only fans the Nets will take or people who felt Lin was the death blow and possibly people who are just getting into the game.

Personally, I'm not worried at all. Williams, Johnson, Wallace, Lopez. Williams is legit, Johnson may have the worst contract in the NBA, Wallace is nothing special and Lopez is a C who can score but can't do much of anything else.

Yeah we've had tons of bad contract but Humphries for 2 years and $24 million?

The Knicks are the better team. No doubt the Nyets being in Brooklyn will spice up the rivalry but that's it.

NALOD -- Seriously. The ABA. You are comparing the ABA to the NBA. SMH.

You forgot to mention who won the CFL Grey Cup. Or the winner of the International League. And Pele! You forgot about Pele! I remember when soccer owned NYC!

You'd do better to compare the ABA whose economics were being squeezed by the NBA to the AFL football that eventually merged with the NFL. The NBA was doing its best to kill the ABA and almost succeeded. THe merger of 4 teams in was a compromise to years of litigation from unsavory practices by both leagues. The 6million entrance fee hurt the Nets big time (they were underfunded) but The Nuggets did well and we all know what San Antonio grew up to be. They had some good years early on with George "Ice man" Gervin.

Not comparing the two. History is what it is.

You're not comparing the two, but yet:

Nalod wrote:Knicks in 1970 and 1973
NEW YORK NETS in 1974 and 1976

Hmmmm, reading back your posts is something I thought I would never do to someone of your obvious mentality and insight. Oh well, I guess we'll always have the lockout.

You really don't think it would do better to compare real, existing leagues to giving footnotes about defunct leagues of the past? And really bad defunct leagues of the past at that? Makes for a better, more meaningful comparison. History of the ABA being what is was.

Team A and team B both exist currently in League A. There used to be League A and League B. Only League A exists now. Team A never belonged in League B. Given:
1) Team A in league A
2) Team B in league B
3) Team B in league A

Which comparison makes more sense:

A) 1 and 2
B) 1 and 3

See if you can get this right. Go slowly, check your work.

There were not comparisons. It was a compilation.

My point was the subset mentioned had not done shyt in a long time and Knicks have not DOMINATED anything.

The other point was the Nets that won was a NEW YORK team. Not that Sorry ass Jersey experiment. It was not one or the other (Knicks or Nets) it was both. DR J. was a superstar and he played 10 from my house!

I am and always a basketball fan first.

Be it as it may, the NBA in the late 70's was a 2nd rate league whose finals were tape delayed because nobody watched. Bird/Magic saved the league. The Decline of the Lakers, Celtic and Knicks was a problem. NBA really wanted DR J in the league. They needed him.

I did not root for PHilly to win with DR J. Certainly never over the Knicks! Nets became irrelevant.

The ABA would have died in time but im telling you, it was not a big TV event by any stretch but the Nets-Nugget series in 76' was awesome! 7 game war! I was there, I saw it. I saw the still fresh Nassau Coliseam rocking with NY BASKETBALL FANS cheering load!

It was great! Look it up.

infinitilov100 wrote:By Ian Begley | ESPNNewYork.com Recommend0Tweet0Comments274

There were plenty of question marks surrounding the Knicks heading into the offseason. They didn't have a coach, didn't have a lot of money to spend and had some significant roster issues to address.

The one sure thing, supposedly, was that Jeremy Lin would be back.

We all know how that turned out.

Lin's gone, but GM Glen Grunwald added several major pieces over the summer.

How did he do? Does he deserve an "A" in his second summer as the Knicks' GM? Or something less flattering?

Let's take a quick look at his moves:

BRINGING BACK WOODY: The Knicks brought interim coach Mike Woodson back on a three-year deal. The organization didn't conduct much of a coaching search. The Knicks never reached out to Phil Jackson or formally interviewed any candidates other than Woodson.

THE BIG QUESTION: Was the Knicks' 18-6 record under Woodson in the regular season an anomaly or the norm? Can he guide a team past the second round of the playoffs, something he couldn't accomplish in Atlanta?

SIGNING JAMES WHITE: High-flyer and European standout hopes to make an impact off the bench.

THE BIG QUESTION: Can White do more than just dunk?

SmithRE-SIGNED J.R. SMITH: The Knicks brought Smith back on a cheap two-year deal (player option in the second year). The contract gives New York Smith's early Bird Rights if they choose to re-sign him next season.

THE BIG QUESTION: Can Smith score with enough consistency to be a valuable weapon off the bench? Or does he start in front of Ronnie Brewer?

KiddSIGNING JASON KIDD: The 39-year-old point guard made waves when he chose to sign with New York over Mark Cuban's Mavs. Kidd signed for the tax-payer's exception ($3.09 million over three years) and is expected to back up Raymond Felton. Shortly after his introductory news conference, Kidd was charged with DWI after a one-car accident in the Hamptons.

THE BIG QUESTION: Does Kidd have enough left in the tank to give the Knicks quality minutes behind Felton? Can he still guard anyone? Does he have the gravitas to get Carmelo Anthony and Amare Stoudemire on the same page?

NovakBRINGING BACK NOVAK: Grunwald gave Novak a four-year $15 million deal, rewarding him for an unbelievable run last season.

THE BIG QUESTION: Can Novak re-create the magic of last year, when he led the NBA in 3-point field goal percentage? Has he improved his catch-and-shoot game and his ability to get his shot off the dribble?

CambyTRADING FOR CAMBY: Grunwald acquired the veteran big man and former Knick from Houston for Toney Douglas, Josh Harrellson, Jerome Jordan and two future second-round draft picks.

THE BIG QUESTION: Did the Knicks overpay for Camby or will he prove to be a valuable piece off the bench behind Tyson Chandler and Stoudemire?

SIGNING PRIGIONI: The Knicks inked Pablo Prigioni, a 35-year-old veteran of European hoops, to fill in as the third-string point guard.

THE BIG QUESTION: How does Prigioni's pass-first game translate to the NBA? At 35, can he provide quality minutes if called upon?

FeltonTRADING FOR FELTON: Grunwald acquired Felton and Kurt Thomas from Portland in a sign-and-trade for Jared Jeffries, Dan Gadzuric, the draft rights to Kostas Papanikolaou and Giorgos Printezis, and a protected future second-round draft pick.

THE BIG QUESTION: Will the Knicks get the Felton they had in 2010-11 (17 ppg, 9 assists) or the overweight Felton who struggled in Portland for much of last season?

LinLETTING LIN WALK: The Knicks opted not to match the Rockets' three-year, $25 million offer to Lin. They ultimately deemed that Lin wasn't worth the money, particularly $14.8 million in the third season. This wasn't necessarily Grunwald's call though, as owner James Dolan likely made the final decision on Lin. Either way, Linsanity is over in New York.

THE BIG QUESTION: Will it continue in Houston? Can Lin duplicate last season's remarkable run with the Rockets? If he does, and Felton struggles, will the Knicks regret their decision to let Lin go?

BrewerBRINGING IN BREWER: Grunwald brought in former Bull Ronnie Brewer Jr. for the veteran's minimum. The 6-6 guard brings a strong defensive presence to New York, particularly on the perimeter.

THE BIG QUESTION: Will Brewer start or do the Knicks give the starting nod to Smith and bring Brewer off the bench?

Grunwald will likely add one more player before training camp, but in looking at what he's done so far, we give Grunwald a B-minus. Solid moves given the circumstances, but still plenty of question marks heading into the season.

What do you think? What grade would you give Grunwald?

A+

WE see the article on the front page. You need not repost again and again.