HofstraBBall wrote:

mreinman wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

mreinman wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

knickscity wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:Hindsight makes it easy to say we should have Traded Hardaway for Portis. Of course it would now prove to have been a great trade. However, my point was that trading what you know for a might be rookie is risky. Specially at the point guard position. Traditionally a very risky pick due to the many factors that go into becoming a succesful NBA point guard. Hardaway was a scorer and pretty good three point shooter, something we dearly need in our second unit. Yes he had deficiencies but you knew what they were. Not claiming Hardaway was a great plaer but at least he was not an unproven rookie. Would have preferred to trade him as part of a package for an experienced guard. Say, Lowry?

Not hindsight when quite a few viewed Portis as lottery talent. As far as Timmy for Grant, Hardaway was awful even in the one area he was supposedly good at.

Awful? In what sense? I am not saying he was a starter. We are comparing two bench players right?
So to say 11 points off bench is awful is juat a blanket unsupported opinion. Something rampant on the boards. He was nothing more than a good bench scorer. He did that. Grant is giving us what again?

wait ... are you saying that THJ was not awful? He was a good bench player? Points?

As a player coming off the bench as offensive spark, yes. Compared to first year rookie, Grant, hell yes. Point of thread was to voice preference to keep a third year player that showed signs of offensive ability as oppose to a first year rookie point guard. One of the toughest positions to draft. As Grant is showing. Not necessary to get into a conversation to argue how good TH was or was not. But a third year player that showed signs of a offensive spark. Something currently lacking.

THJ was a terrible offensive player and possibly the worst defender in the league. Grant plays defense and has much more potential already and he is nothing at this point.

So your going to prolong your point or lack there of by using the pretense that he has "Potential". A word used by those that can't concede a point until three years from now. As a Knick fan I hope you are right and I am wrong, in three years. Still can't change the point. At this time without assumptions and personal opinion TH better for us than Grant. If you need me to pull up stats, I wont.

grant today is not good. THJ is bloody terrible. Potential is just icing on the cake.