CrushAlot wrote:

Splat wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Splat wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Splat wrote:Wait a second now. Dolan said what he said. Even if Stat ain't fibbing, Dolan himself established Isiah was involved in the decision to sign Stoudemire. Dolan said it at the press conference and completely undermined Walsh in the process. If that isn't throwing shade, then you ain't played street ball. You have a history of evasion when put to a question and you're doing it now.

The report said Isiah was given credit because Dolan wanted to bring Isiah back. I agree that it wasn't fair to Walsh but Amare was the big one acquired by Walsh in his attempt to acquire a big two. Also, how is citing Amare's quote evading? I don't recall ever evading anything when chatting with you. 3G called some of ny responses evading but that was because I said the Knicks traded a first for Bargs and he insisted that it was moved and wasn't a 1st because the nuggets had the right to swap. If you agree with him then I am guilty of evading.

I said it because Dolan's words were explicit and are not particularly prone to any other interpretation. It established Isiah was involved in the decision to sign Stoudemire. That you explain Dolan did so only because he wanted Isiah back in the fold merely reinforces what I'm saying. What in the hell was Dolan thinking then? Is Walsh running operations or not? This notion that Isiah was a neutral factor is nuts. You don't truly believe that Dolan's continued reliance on Isiah was not divisive towards Walsh? Come on man. I'm not trying to strong arm you to win an argument, but seriously?

Look, Dolan never had Walsh's back. If you actually think Walsh's issues with Dolan only happened in one fell swoop during the Melo saga and before that everything was ducky, how can I expect you to properly interpret a bold-faced diss of Walsh made by Dolan at the press conference?

I do believe you started this convo with one idea, but I think you're rational enough to rethink this and see the Stoudemire signing was driven by Dolan way more than it could have been by Walsh. Even minus the Isiah thing, just the simple fact that I would never expect Walsh on the Pacers to sign someone to a $100M contract if it was uninsurable. No way Jose. That's purely a Dolan-grade decision. Snap out of it Crush!

Stat ison Walsh. Moz is on Dolan.

Aw shucks, you ain't no fun. No mojo. Fished for a deeper response and all I get is a terse "cuz I say so" response. The great debaters this ain't.

There is nothing to debate.

yawwwwwwnnn

yellowboy90 wrote:The one thing about this that fails for me is the notion that Melo is/will be guarded by other teams 4s. Rarely did that or will that occur if he is moved to the 4. I also don't like the notion of comparing a player's numbers playing injured to relative healthy seasons.

I do however like small ball but I didn't like the way the Knicks ran it with basically 3 combo guards. I would much rather have two combo forwards surrounded by traditional player's. Shump was not able to attack the Boozers and Wests when guarded by them. He was too inconsistent.

If the Knicks want to use the triangle they will need another forward who is comfortable on the perimeter but who can switch defensively and guard multiple positions.