[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

The official unofficial Darko(and a player to be named) is a Knick thread!
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 6 of 7 « First‹ Previous 4  5  6  7 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
9/10/2008  11:08 AM
from memphis:
Acquiring Randolph would be worst move Grizzlies could make

By Geoff Calkins (Contact), Memphis Commercial Appeal
Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Two years ago, late in Brandon Roy’s rookie year, the Portland Trail Blazers lost yet another game. Zach Randolph went on a rant in the locker room afterward, calling out teammates, pointing fingers, telling other players they weren’t pulling their weight.

Roy told Randolph to sit down and shut up. The next day, he went to see Portland general manager Kevin Pritchard and told him to get rid of Randolph.

“We can’t win with this guy,” said Roy, in so many words.

Pritchard dealt Randolph to Isiah Thomas’s New York Knicks that offseason. Now the Knicks are trying to find a sucker to help them rectify Thomas’s mistake.

Enter the Memphis Grizzlies. You knew that was coming, right?

If there’s a dumb move out there to be made, chances are your local NBA team will find a way to get involved.

Sure enough, the entire NBA universe is reporting that the Grizzlies and Knicks have talked about a swap that would bring Randolph to Memphis in exchange for Marko Jaric and Darko Milicic.

Sources close to the negotiations say that the deal can’t go through until Knicks president Donnie Walsh and Knicks coach Mike D’Antoni stop high-fiving each other long enough to complete the paperwork.

Or maybe the Knicks do not want to appear too eager. Although, why wouldn’t they be eager to get rid of a fat, shoot-first power forward who destroys locker rooms, disdains defense, regularly shows up in police reports and will make $48 million over the next three years?

So the Knicks called the Grizzlies. Because what other team were they going to call?

The Clippers already said “no.” The Knicks knew they couldn’t foist a guy like Randolph off on a credible franchise.

“Hello, Chris Wallace?” said Walsh, which I actually understand. It was worth a try, right? But why didn’t Wallace slam down the phone?

Wasn’t it just yesterday that he and Grizzlies owner Mike Heisley were talking about building with the young kids, and letting them grow and develop, and not wavering from the three-year plan?

How does Randolph fit with a three-year plan? How does he fit with an impressionable, young team?

Sam Smith, who covered the NBA for roughly 126 years for the Chicago Tribune, once took a good stab at re-creating Randolph’s rap sheet. I’d include it in this column but, honestly, I don’t have the room.

Randolph was suspended by the Trail Blazers for sucker-pouncingpunching a teammate. He was suspended by the Trail Blazers for making obscene gestures to a fan. He was arrested in Portland for driving under the influence of booze and dope. He was sued by a woman for sexual assault. And, my personal favorite: While on bereavement leave from the Trail Blazers in connection with the death of his girlfriend’s cousin, Randolph left a strip club without paying the bill.

This is a man the Grizzlies have thought about adding to their impressionable young nucleus? This is the guy they want teaching Darrell Arthur what it means to be a power forward in the NBA?

Arthur: “Boy, it was really stupid of me to get caught with women and weed at the NBA’s rookie seminar.”

Randolph: “It sure was, rook. Next time, remember to disconnect the smoke alarm.”

What possible rationale could there be for this kind of move? At worst, Randolph kills the locker room and the team. At best, he gets the Grizzlies five more wins and makes it harder for the franchise to find a a long-term answer at power forward in next year’s lottery. All for the bargain basement price of $48 million over the next three years.

Please, don’t tell me the deal will enable the Grizzlies to get ride of Milicic’s bad contract, either. The Grizzlies offered Milicic that contract just one year ago. Now that mistake could be the team’s justification for making a bigger one?

It’s management by impulse, by overreaction, by today’s spasm of an idea. Give Marc Iavaroni all the power. Play offense like the Suns. Strip Iavaroni of everything but his job. Play defense like the Pistons. Deal the expensive power forward for financial flexibility. Acquire an expensive power forward and flexibility be hanged.

Mind you, the preceding paragraph has all happened in the last year. And Heisley wonders why the franchise doesn’t win.

The Grizzlies should walk away from any potential trade for Randolph. If they won’t listen to me, they should listen to the people who know the big guy best.

The Trail Blazers drafted Randolph out of Michigan State. They employed him for six years. And when they assembled a locker room of promising young talent, they shipped him as far away from that locker room as possible.

Now the Grizzlies are assembling a locker room of promising young talent. And they’re thinking about making Randolph the highest-paid player — and therefore, the instant leader — of that team?

Don’t do it, Mr. Heisley. Don’t abandon your three-year plan.

Zach Randolph is not a guy you can win with. Ask Brandon Roy.

To reach Geoff Calkins, call him at 529-2364 or e-mail calkins@commercialappeal.com
AUTOADVERT
franco12
Posts: 34069
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 2/19/2004
Member: #599
USA
9/10/2008  12:14 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by kam77:
Having both Curry and Zach mean that Lee, Gallo, and Chandler will probably get fewer minutes, and I think D'Antoni would prefer to see these guys playing more time than less. The Knicks have to see if Chandler and Gallo are really the future of this team, and decide whether Lee can play in the D'Antoni system and is worthy of a contract extension at some point.
Realistically, Rookies and 2nd year players rarely expect to see/ get to see much time.

What about Lee, though?

And that might be a valid argument on a winning team, but last time I checked, we put up 23 wins. We are rebuilding- which means we need to develop our young players and see if they can learn & become something. That means Chandler & Gallo need minutes, not pine time.
kam77
Posts: 27664
Alba Posts: 25
Joined: 3/17/2004
Member: #634
9/10/2008  12:28 PM
Chandler & Gallo need minutes, not pine time.

What about Lee, though?
lol @ being BANNED by Martin since 11/07/10 (for asking if Mr. Earl had a point). Really, Martin? C'mon. This is the internet. I've seen much worse on this site. By Earl himself. Drop the hypocrisy.
purple012870
Posts: 21778
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2003
Member: #432
9/10/2008  12:32 PM
I would have no issue whatso ever with benching Zach in favor of younger, more intelligent, less selfish players. If we don't make this deal before 2010 FA, we probably can make a Wally Szerb type deal at some point.
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
9/10/2008  12:36 PM
I think Walsh is smart enough to see beyond the immediate and looks at things in a long term perspective. If Zach's value is low, which in a sense it is at this point in time, I don't believe that it can go any lower at this point. If you only have 2 teams that are interested in him, then down to one team, then that's about as low as it gets. IMO there's a good chance that his value goes up at the trade Deadline. More of his money comes off, the longer we wait and that increases his value to other teams. There's the likelyhood that he'll be able to put up good numbers under Mike and that should help too.

I believe Walsh wants to move Zach, but not at the expense of making a deal that's good for the team. It seems that in his estimation, just giving him away to the Clips was a bad move. That can be debated, but that's how he sees it. He clearly believes he can get more for him. I see no need to hurry at this point. If we have to start the year with him, it's not the best situation, but we can live thru it.
Paladin55
Posts: 24321
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/6/2008
Member: #2098
9/10/2008  1:30 PM
Posted by kam77:
Having both Curry and Zach mean that Lee, Gallo, and Chandler will probably get fewer minutes, and I think D'Antoni would prefer to see these guys playing more time than less. The Knicks have to see if Chandler and Gallo are really the future of this team, and decide whether Lee can play in the D'Antoni system and is worthy of a contract extension at some point.
Realistically, Rookies and 2nd year players rarely expect to see/ get to see much time.
This might be true about a team that is coming into this season with a history of winning, but the Knicks are not this type of team. Realistically, a good number of players now under contract are not going to be wearing a Knicks uniform in a few years.

So you would build you team around Q, Jeffries, Randolph, and Curry because of their "experience?"

At some point the Knicks will have to be putting out a team which might seem attractive to the free agents everybody here will be begging Walsh to get. D'Antoni is going to be molding a team out of the same mediocre players who have gotten us to the point we are not in as well as some new additions and younger vets who might have a chance to stick around in the future.

I expect that as the year progresses, you will see changes in playing time, as the players who can handle D'Antoni's system begin to emerge.

Is anyone really looking forward to seeing Randolph, Curry, and Q, who may do OK, but is probably not in the team's long term plans, playing 90+MPG each game??


No man is happy without a delusion of some kind. Delusions are as necessary to our happiness as realities- C.N. Bovee
kam77
Posts: 27664
Alba Posts: 25
Joined: 3/17/2004
Member: #634
9/10/2008  1:33 PM
So you would build you team around Q, Jeffries, Randolph, and Curry because of their "experience?"

lol @ being BANNED by Martin since 11/07/10 (for asking if Mr. Earl had a point). Really, Martin? C'mon. This is the internet. I've seen much worse on this site. By Earl himself. Drop the hypocrisy.
Paladin55
Posts: 24321
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/6/2008
Member: #2098
9/10/2008  4:19 PM
Posted by kam77:
So you would build you team around Q, Jeffries, Randolph, and Curry because of their "experience?"

Posted by kam77:Realistically, Rookies and 2nd year players rarely expect to see/ get to see much time.

Why would you have trouble understanding my question? You made the above statement about rookies and 2nd year players! - I am looking at some of the veterans and asking you whether you would play them over younger players simply because they have "experience." Hell- I should have included Marbury in the mix. Are the guys I mentioned above + Marbury, the guys YOU expect to be starting when, hopefully, the Knicks turn things around??

Should they play more minutes if they can't really play in D'Antoni's system but manage to get us to 30 wins, or would you rather watch the Knicks have a 25 win season with Chandler and Gallo looking ugly at times but learning on the job and gradually earning more minutes as their games improve?

I hope that I cleared things up for you.



No man is happy without a delusion of some kind. Delusions are as necessary to our happiness as realities- C.N. Bovee
kam77
Posts: 27664
Alba Posts: 25
Joined: 3/17/2004
Member: #634
9/10/2008  4:27 PM
Are you on crack or something? You got all that outta me saying rookies and 2nd year players don't get much burn? Did i ever, evah, EVAH ever.. say anything about those vets?
lol @ being BANNED by Martin since 11/07/10 (for asking if Mr. Earl had a point). Really, Martin? C'mon. This is the internet. I've seen much worse on this site. By Earl himself. Drop the hypocrisy.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
9/10/2008  4:36 PM
Posted by kam77:

Are you on crack or something? You got all that outta me saying rookies and 2nd year players don't get much burn? Did i ever, evah, EVAH ever.. say anything about those vets?

ROFL! I think he somehow interpreted your statement "rookies and 2nd year players don't play much" as meaning "I would play EVERY veteran many minutes"
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
9/10/2008  5:04 PM
What's the support you have for the idea GMs are gullible?

Is that a serious question? In any case, the entire idea of 'Gullible' is yours not mine. My point is that we can trade Randolph with a higher value to a team that is in need a get better value for him than Darko and Marko.
What are some examples where a veteran's stats were inflated one year and then a GM gave up a lot for the player?

Jerry Stackhouse twice. But again is this a serious question or are you just trying to play devil's advocate? Showcasing players has been a part of the NBA for a long time. Are you unaware of showcasing?
Why did no one offer a lot for Zach the last time he put up the kind of #s you're referring to?

Neither you nor I know what was offered by other GM's for Randolph a year ago. However, if we assume what you are postulating as fact, perhaps it was because he just came off of knee surgery. Perhaps it was because the Blazers wanted to move Randolph quick so they did not hold out for a larger offer. The Blazers were in an entirely different position from us, because they had a young star-potential forward to step in for Randolph, a young star guard they wanted to create shots for, and the number 1 pick in Greg Oden stepping in.

oohah

Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
Paladin55
Posts: 24321
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/6/2008
Member: #2098
9/10/2008  5:14 PM
Posted by kam77:

Are you on crack or something? You got all that outta me saying rookies and 2nd year players don't get much burn? Did i ever, evah, EVAH ever.. say anything about those vets?

You are being obtuse, man. You might also look up the word, inference. In fact, I will help you out.

Inference- the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true (Realistically, Rookies and 2nd year players rarely expect to see/ get to see much time.) to another whose truth is believed to follow from that of the former: Therefore, since the Knicks will not play their rookie or 2nd year player that often, they will depend on the same veterans- Randolph, Curry, Marbury, Jeffries, Q,etc., who helped lead us to a 23 win season.

Who the heck else is going to be playing for the Knicks if you aren't playing Chandler, Gallinari, or any other young player the they might pick up???? You are basically saying that, except for Duhon, the Knicks are going to turn around their franchise with the same players from last year who won 23 games for you!!

Which veteran players except Lee, and maybe Curry, if he is really in shape, would you want to play if they are taking minutes away from the two guys who you project to be your starting forwards in a few years? And if the Knicks were to make the Memphis deal and also get Crittenton, would you keep him from playing this year because he is a 2nd year player, too?





[Edited by - Paladin55 on 09-10-2008 5:16 PM]
No man is happy without a delusion of some kind. Delusions are as necessary to our happiness as realities- C.N. Bovee
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
9/10/2008  5:19 PM
Posted by Ira:

If, by 2010 we haven't traded Zach or other contracts that would put us in a position to sign a top free agent, we can just buy Zach out then. We're not under any pressure to do this or any other deal.

what possible good would buying out Zach be to our chances of landing a FA in 2010? buying him out simply to get rid of him a-la what the Knicks should do w/Marbury right now is all well & dandy, but we need to take advantage of an opportunity to unload his contract on another sucker... i mean team... if it presents itself & we don't have to give up too much in terms of assets to do it... if that asset involves giving up a future #1 i agree, it's probably too much, but you have to try & work something out before 2010 to get rid of his cap killing deal if at all possible.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
9/10/2008  5:24 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by TMS:

no matter what the trade resulted in for the Lakers, the Grizzlies needed to make the deal that benefits them... what better trades were out there for them to make at the time? do u think a trade of Pau for someone like Shawn Marion woulda benefitted them so much more? i personally don't see it... i think the trade that benefits them the most is exactly the one they ended up making... a team that's in rebuild mode has no need for another aging vet making big dollars, but they do have a big need for draft picks, young prospects & cap space... what happens w/the Lakers from here on out should not be their concern in the least bit... they need to be focusing on how to best utilize those picks & cap space so they can maximize the value they got outta that deal... i think they made the right move & have always thought so.

to be honest, i really have zero idea why they would even be interested in making this deal for Zach after all that... i mean he's not an old vet but man, does he have a whole lotta luggage... i can't blame them 1 bit for asking for another pick to take on that albatross.
If you ran Memphis, would you do the deal if you were getting back a lottery protected 1st round pick or would you just stay away from Zach?

if i ran Memphis i would have absolutely zero interest in a player like Zach Randolph, i don't care if the Knicks would even give me a 1st rounder to take him off their hands... i'd be focusing on accumulating more draft picks & cap space & targetting a legitimate rebuilding plan making sure my talent scouting is on point & i don't sacrifice that plan for a player i absolutely know i can't win with.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
9/10/2008  5:34 PM
Posted by sebstar:
Switching gears, Memphis is now the third team that has gone on record in shown interest in Zach. Before everyone was convinced that trading him an impossibility. I commend Walsh for not giving in to the myopia regarding Zach, among the Knick fanbase. Good for Walsh in resisting the "honor" in getting fleeced just to rid ourselves of a 20/10 power forward in his prime.[/b]

the only myopia that's prevalent among Knick fans is this fantasy based notion that we're gonna get anything of significant value back for Zach in any trades w/o giving up more assets ourselves to achieve it... may i remind u that this is also the 3rd team to have gone on record asking for a 1st round pick from our end in order to take that albatross off our hands... in Philly's case, they wanted to move up 10 slots in the draft & allowed us to at least keep that 1st round pick, which looking back now is probably the least that any of the 3 have asked of us in any proposed Zach deals, & yet you & the rest of the "let's wait for a better deal" posse said we were the ones getting fleeced in that deal.

why if there are so many great packages awaiting us out there for Zach's services, we haven't even sniffed one that doesn't involve us giving up a 1st rounder in the deal? ask urselves that question & then consider why any team would wanna hamper their payroll for the next 3 years w/a player like Zach Randolph who carries along w/him so much baggage & negativity along w/that horrendous contract of his??? ENOUGH w/this bogus '20/10 player' crap please... a true 20/10 player is someone like Brand or KG, guys who have averaged those types of numbers for their entire careers... these are guys you would give up a lot to acquire.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
kam77
Posts: 27664
Alba Posts: 25
Joined: 3/17/2004
Member: #634
9/10/2008  5:54 PM
Posted by Paladin55:
Posted by kam77:

Are you on crack or something? You got all that outta me saying rookies and 2nd year players don't get much burn? Did i ever, evah, EVAH ever.. say anything about those vets?

You are being obtuse, man. You might also look up the word, inference. In fact, I will help you out.

Inference- the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true (Realistically, Rookies and 2nd year players rarely expect to see/ get to see much time.) to another whose truth is believed to follow from that of the former: Therefore, since the Knicks will not play their rookie or 2nd year player that often, they will depend on the same veterans- Randolph, Curry, Marbury, Jeffries, Q,etc., who helped lead us to a 23 win season.

Who the heck else is going to be playing for the Knicks if you aren't playing Chandler, Gallinari, or any other young player the they might pick up???? You are basically saying that, except for Duhon, the Knicks are going to turn around their franchise with the same players from last year who won 23 games for you!!

Which veteran players except Lee, and maybe Curry, if he is really in shape, would you want to play if they are taking minutes away from the two guys who you project to be your starting forwards in a few years? And if the Knicks were to make the Memphis deal and also get Crittenton, would you keep him from playing this year because he is a 2nd year player, too?





[Edited by - Paladin55 on 09-10-2008 5:16 PM]


Your inference - that i would build a team around this cast of castoffs - was wildly off.
lol @ being BANNED by Martin since 11/07/10 (for asking if Mr. Earl had a point). Really, Martin? C'mon. This is the internet. I've seen much worse on this site. By Earl himself. Drop the hypocrisy.
franco12
Posts: 34069
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 2/19/2004
Member: #599
USA
9/10/2008  6:08 PM
latrell sprewell had much more baggage when we got him.

zach isn't bad- but we can't have both zach & curry- they don't fit, just like francis & marbury.

if we can't move zach, we should try to move curry. I actually think zach is better in many ways than curry.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
9/10/2008  6:21 PM
Posted by TMS:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by TMS:

no matter what the trade resulted in for the Lakers, the Grizzlies needed to make the deal that benefits them... what better trades were out there for them to make at the time? do u think a trade of Pau for someone like Shawn Marion woulda benefitted them so much more? i personally don't see it... i think the trade that benefits them the most is exactly the one they ended up making... a team that's in rebuild mode has no need for another aging vet making big dollars, but they do have a big need for draft picks, young prospects & cap space... what happens w/the Lakers from here on out should not be their concern in the least bit... they need to be focusing on how to best utilize those picks & cap space so they can maximize the value they got outta that deal... i think they made the right move & have always thought so.

to be honest, i really have zero idea why they would even be interested in making this deal for Zach after all that... i mean he's not an old vet but man, does he have a whole lotta luggage... i can't blame them 1 bit for asking for another pick to take on that albatross.
If you ran Memphis, would you do the deal if you were getting back a lottery protected 1st round pick or would you just stay away from Zach?

if i ran Memphis i would have absolutely zero interest in a player like Zach Randolph, i don't care if the Knicks would even give me a 1st rounder to take him off their hands... i'd be focusing on accumulating more draft picks & cap space & targetting a legitimate rebuilding plan making sure my talent scouting is on point & i don't sacrifice that plan for a player i absolutely know i can't win with.
Wow, we think alike when it doesn't involve NY teams!
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
9/10/2008  6:24 PM
Posted by oohah:
What's the support you have for the idea GMs are gullible?

Is that a serious question? In any case, the entire idea of 'Gullible' is yours not mine. My point is that we can trade Randolph with a higher value to a team that is in need a get better value for him than Darko and Marko.
What are some examples where a veteran's stats were inflated one year and then a GM gave up a lot for the player?

Jerry Stackhouse twice. But again is this a serious question or are you just trying to play devil's advocate? Showcasing players has been a part of the NBA for a long time. Are you unaware of showcasing?
Why did no one offer a lot for Zach the last time he put up the kind of #s you're referring to?

Neither you nor I know what was offered by other GM's for Randolph a year ago. However, if we assume what you are postulating as fact, perhaps it was because he just came off of knee surgery. Perhaps it was because the Blazers wanted to move Randolph quick so they did not hold out for a larger offer. The Blazers were in an entirely different position from us, because they had a young star-potential forward to step in for Randolph, a young star guard they wanted to create shots for, and the number 1 pick in Greg Oden stepping in.

oohah
I think showcasing is just a term we fans use. At best, I might be willing to grant you that it could work if you have a young player who doesn't have an established track record. I'm not sure which Stackhouse trades you mean but stackhouse was a very good player and was traded for an even better one if you're talking about the Rip Hamilton deal. I don't see what that has to do with showcasing. Are you saying he was showcased so that he could put up better stats and those better stats are the reason the GM traded him for Rip? There's a lot of assumptions in there. As to the Blazers trading Zach: We know that either no one offered anything for him or some team did and the Blazers decided to go with our really low offer because they love us and were in a generous mood. The former seems more plausible to me.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 09-10-2008 6:26 PM]
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
9/10/2008  6:25 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by TMS:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by TMS:

no matter what the trade resulted in for the Lakers, the Grizzlies needed to make the deal that benefits them... what better trades were out there for them to make at the time? do u think a trade of Pau for someone like Shawn Marion woulda benefitted them so much more? i personally don't see it... i think the trade that benefits them the most is exactly the one they ended up making... a team that's in rebuild mode has no need for another aging vet making big dollars, but they do have a big need for draft picks, young prospects & cap space... what happens w/the Lakers from here on out should not be their concern in the least bit... they need to be focusing on how to best utilize those picks & cap space so they can maximize the value they got outta that deal... i think they made the right move & have always thought so.

to be honest, i really have zero idea why they would even be interested in making this deal for Zach after all that... i mean he's not an old vet but man, does he have a whole lotta luggage... i can't blame them 1 bit for asking for another pick to take on that albatross.
If you ran Memphis, would you do the deal if you were getting back a lottery protected 1st round pick or would you just stay away from Zach?

if i ran Memphis i would have absolutely zero interest in a player like Zach Randolph, i don't care if the Knicks would even give me a 1st rounder to take him off their hands... i'd be focusing on accumulating more draft picks & cap space & targetting a legitimate rebuilding plan making sure my talent scouting is on point & i don't sacrifice that plan for a player i absolutely know i can't win with.
Wow, we think alike when it doesn't involve NY teams!

there wasn't much different in our thinking when it involved the rebuild plan for last offseason for the Yanks either, we both pretty much wanted the same players... i just understood why Cash didn't pull the trigger on some of the moves while you didn't.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
Page 6 of 7 « First‹ Previous 4  5  6  7 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
The official unofficial Darko(and a player to be named) is a Knick thread!
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy