Posted by bobs3304:

KG is just about on par with Duncan and Shaq as far as the impact he can have on any team.

To turn you backs on that.....is, well, dumbfounding IMO.

Posted by Bonn1997:

Rich, would you have done the trade Miami did for Shaq? Are they gonna be title contenders for ten years (when Shaq's about 44)? Or would they have been better served over a ten year period by building around Dwyane Wade, Caron Butler, Lamar Odom? (I'm asking ten years because that's the time period you brought up--not the period I would would build for.)

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 11-21-2005 9:14 PM]

Posted by Rich:

Posted by nyk4ever:

Posted by Rich:

I would be strongly against it for the reasons I stated. Adding those players to this team would merely make it a playoff tease, not a bona fide championship contender.

I think a top tier true PG is a bigger need than KG. That player would take this team further in the playoffs,, and would accelerate the development of the young players.

How long do you want to wait though Rich? It'd been 32 years since the Knicks won a championship and they would finally be adding a player that rivals Patrick Ewing to this team. Ewing never had a Marbury and now KG would have Marbury with Larry Brown coaching. I think it makes the Knicks instant Title-Contenders.

Ironically, impatience is the primary that the drought has been 32 yeats. I'm willing to wait as long as it takes to put a viable plan in place and see it through. Ewing didn't win a championship for one reason: Scotty Sterling traded the pick that became Pippen for Juwann Oldham.

Marbury isn't a franchise player and probably can't win a championship as a PG, especially under Larry.

I think Marbury and Brown can actually win one together.

Posted by gunsnewing:

Posted by Rich:

Posted by gunsnewing:

Posted by bobs3304:

KG is just about on par with Duncan and Shaq as far as the impact he can have on any team.

To turn you backs on that.....is, well, dumbfounding IMO.

KG is exactly what we are missing. A player who dominates both ends of the floor. Man larry brown would be happy!

The Knicks are missing a Chris Paul type.

just look at the nets with kidd and philly with iverson. or gary paYTON with seattle. those teams could've really used a guy like KG to win a championship

But for Shaq and Kobe the Nets win at least one ring.

Iverson never had a supporting cast, and Payton really didn't either.

Marbury isn't that good.

Posted by PhilinLA:

Posted by Rich:

Posted by nyk4ever:

Posted by Rich:

I would be strongly against it for the reasons I stated. Adding those players to this team would merely make it a playoff tease, not a bona fide championship contender.

I think a top tier true PG is a bigger need than KG. That player would take this team further in the playoffs,, and would accelerate the development of the young players.

How long do you want to wait though Rich? It'd been 32 years since the Knicks won a championship and they would finally be adding a player that rivals Patrick Ewing to this team. Ewing never had a Marbury and now KG would have Marbury with Larry Brown coaching. I think it makes the Knicks instant Title-Contenders.

Ironically, impatience is the primary that the drought has been 32 yeats. I'm willing to wait as long as it takes to put a viable plan in place and see it through. Ewing didn't win a championship for one reason: Scotty Sterling traded the pick that became Pippen for Juwann Oldham.

Marbury isn't a franchise player and probably can't win a championship as a PG, especially under Larry.

I think Marbury and Brown can actually win one together.

If so, I think Marbury will be the 2 guard.

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Rich:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Rich, would you have done the trade Miami did for Shaq? Are they gonna be title contenders for ten years (when Shaq's about 44)? Or would they have been better served over a ten year period by building around Dwyane Wade, Caron Butler, Lamar Odom? (I'm asking ten years because that's the time period you brought up--not the period I would would build for.)

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 11-21-2005 9:14 PM]

Depending on the results of his physical, yes because: 1) Shaq is the most dominant player in the NBA; and 2) Miami got to keep their best player, and I don't think Odom or Butler are that good, and not nearly as good as Frye or Curry will be.

Thanks; you didn't answer the 2nd part of my question, though. Since you brought up the idea of contending over a ten year period, I wanted to know whether you thought the Heat would better contend over the next ten years (when Shaq is about 44) by keeping Wade, Butler, and Odom together or losing the latter two and getting Shaq.

Law school teaches you that every general rule has exceptions.

Posted by Rich:

Posted by PhilinLA:

Posted by Rich:

Posted by nyk4ever:

Posted by Rich:

I would be strongly against it for the reasons I stated. Adding those players to this team would merely make it a playoff tease, not a bona fide championship contender.

I think a top tier true PG is a bigger need than KG. That player would take this team further in the playoffs,, and would accelerate the development of the young players.

How long do you want to wait though Rich? It'd been 32 years since the Knicks won a championship and they would finally be adding a player that rivals Patrick Ewing to this team. Ewing never had a Marbury and now KG would have Marbury with Larry Brown coaching. I think it makes the Knicks instant Title-Contenders.

Ironically, impatience is the primary that the drought has been 32 yeats. I'm willing to wait as long as it takes to put a viable plan in place and see it through. Ewing didn't win a championship for one reason: Scotty Sterling traded the pick that became Pippen for Juwann Oldham.

Marbury isn't a franchise player and probably can't win a championship as a PG, especially under Larry.

I think Marbury and Brown can actually win one together.

If so, I think Marbury will be the 2 guard.

I think Marbury will be the guard with the ball in his hands making the big decisions. Whether the score keeper labels him the 1 or the 2 is mostly academic and is not going to have the earth-shaking impact a few posters here think it will. His approach to the game--whether he's listed as the 1 or 2--will matter most.

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 11-21-2005 9:59 PM]