Posted by bitty41:

Posted by BigC:

I like the Zach trade. I'm not going anywhere. Picture frame my name. I can be wrong out of a bilion times I'm right. I also still think Zach is a good move. Zach has played what? One month? You guys gave Q an easy pass for 3 years. Yet you want to bash Zach for one month of bad play with a team that has no system and a joke for a coach?


I like the Zach trade. If you want you can spray paint my name in Penn Station with Zach's name attach to the trade.

You know what the problem is here. If your not making less then 5 million dollars with a contract thats getting ready to expire most of the people on here don't want you anywhere near the Knicks organization (unless your Kobe or Lebron). Because of this bias Zach is never going to be right in certain people's eyes. So this Zach piss party will continue and continue and continue. Good point.





[Edited by - bitty41 on 12-01-2007 9:06 PM]

I also like the fact that people say they want character guys on this team, yet these same fans liked Mason. Who was just as crazy as Zach. If this was any other player on this team these same fans would have said they are not playing good because there was a death in their family. But because it is Zach get rid of him after 15 games bring back Frye and Francis. Should we make excuses for Zach because he had a death in his family and is coming off a major surgery that end last season?

I'm almost convinced that all the Knicks have to do to be a better team is get rid of Marbury. Addition by subtraction.

Big C

This biggest hypocritical statement that some Knick fans will make is "well we should have gotten Ron Artest instead" if you want Ron Artest please never again say you want the Knicks to attain "chracater" guys. Thats an utter and complete joke that people can call Zach a bad character but then still want Ron Artest


Blue,


My problem with Marbury began with the whole Larry Brown fiasco. I thought he could have been that coach who forced Steph to take his game to the next level. Similar to what he did with Iverson (another so-called ball hog). Obvisously it never worked out because Marbury cried like a big baby and his protector Isiah came in to remove Larry. Now Zach hasn't gotten to that point. People on here can get anmesia if they want to but that Portland organization was pretty much a joke until recent years. Their 2nd and 3rd options were the likes of Rueben Patterson and Darius Miles. So thats hardly the same as playing with Amare Stoudamire and Shawn Marion. He only played with Roy, Jack, Webster, and Aldridge for like 2 seasons one of which he went down early.

Also any team that wants to contend for a Championship needs BOTH an inside and outside game. Right now with his faults and all we have a legitimate inside game. I don't care how good of a player he is I don't care if your talking about Dirk, Duncan, KG, Boozer, all those guys need outside players around them. Its almost impossible for any post player to rise above poor or inconsistent guard play and take his team to any sort of real success.



[Edited by - bitty41 on 12-02-2007 11:43 AM]

Posted by BlueSeats:

4 years ago people thought we could build around Steph. I was told time and again he liked to run and we needed more athletic types. We got more athletic types and it still didn't work. Then we got Eddy and we were told he was a once in a generation type we could build around, we just needed a better outside shooting PF to take the triple teamsoff him. But Zach is here and it's not working for Eddy. Now Zach is the guy to build around and we need guards to compliment him.

Each time we get a new boneheaded black-hole we're told he is not the problem, it's the other guys. Anyone suspect we'll get new guards and then decide we need a new PF to compliment them?

I guess Marbury, Jamal, Eddy, and Zach aren't the problems, it's the usual story, lets blame the coach and a scrub.

Junebug2022@hotmail

Blue, could you do me a solid and email me that Marbury thing you did??? If you still have it. This guy Sly wants it to sticky you on his board.

Posted by Anji:

Zach is a cancer, I don't know how people can't see that.

Marbury is a cancer. Zach hasn't done anything dterimental to the New York Knicks. Stop hating.

alot was made of lb's lineup changes as people did not know their roles on the team.

last year, we saw eddy established as the "centerpiece". his role was to get the ball all the time down the court and score in the post. he wasn't asked to defend, he was asked to stay on the court and score. our guards knew how to play with him.

david lee came off the bench, got 30 mins and put up a double double. he knew he was getting those mins night in and night out so he knew his role.

trading for zach brought back the aire of instability and changed the definition of both eddy and lee's role.

the point is not whether we got a better player in the deal. the point is how does trading for zach impact the team. does it make the team better or does it make it worse.

curry doesn't know his role. he gets the ball sometimes, but when he doesn't, there's nothing else. and now people are asking for him to be benched.

lee is now reduced to 20 mins a night, some nights 15. he doesn't know when he's gonna get minutes.

you want to say zach is the best big man we have? ok, fine.
you want to say adding zach adds "healthy" competition? ok, fine.

but ADDING zach makes eddy and lee expendable, which meant we STILL haven't established a core and a chemsitry b/c we are constantly changing the roles of our bigs.

it also tells me isiah doesn't have that much confidence in our "centerpiece" and dlee. so again, we're in this constant cycle of rotating pieces trying to catch lightning in a bottle.

the zach trade = NO STABILITY AGAIN.

Posted by djsunyc:

alot was made of lb's lineup changes as people did not know their roles on the team.

last year, we saw eddy established as the "centerpiece". his role was to get the ball all the time down the court and score in the post. he wasn't asked to defend, he was asked to stay on the court and score. our guards knew how to play with him.

david lee came off the bench, got 30 mins and put up a double double. he knew he was getting those mins night in and night out so he knew his role.

trading for zach brought back the aire of instability and changed the definition of both eddy and lee's role.

the point is not whether we got a better player in the deal. the point is how does trading for zach impact the team. does it make the team better or does it make it worse.

curry doesn't know his role. he gets the ball sometimes, but when he doesn't, there's nothing else. and now people are asking for him to be benched.

lee is now reduced to 20 mins a night, some nights 15. he doesn't know when he's gonna get minutes.

you want to say zach is the best big man we have? ok, fine.
you want to say adding zach adds "healthy" competition? ok, fine.

but ADDING zach makes eddy and lee expendable, which meant we STILL haven't established a core and a chemsitry b/c we are constantly changing the roles of our bigs.

it also tells me isiah doesn't have that much confidence in our "centerpiece" and dlee. so again, we're in this constant cycle of rotating pieces trying to catch lightning in a bottle.

the zach trade = NO STABILITY AGAIN.

DJ...I just amazed we are getting this from you...We were a 33 win team last year...We need improvement from every position....Lee and Curry was good last year but we were still a 33 win team....Zack is better than both...

How is it possible the guy who has played the hardest for the Knicks this year gets the most flack because this team does not have a winning record...How is it possible...

Zack has replaced Marbs as a lightening rod of anger on this board...How is it possible???

Posted by holfresh:

Posted by djsunyc:

alot was made of lb's lineup changes as people did not know their roles on the team.

last year, we saw eddy established as the "centerpiece". his role was to get the ball all the time down the court and score in the post. he wasn't asked to defend, he was asked to stay on the court and score. our guards knew how to play with him.

david lee came off the bench, got 30 mins and put up a double double. he knew he was getting those mins night in and night out so he knew his role.

trading for zach brought back the aire of instability and changed the definition of both eddy and lee's role.

the point is not whether we got a better player in the deal. the point is how does trading for zach impact the team. does it make the team better or does it make it worse.

curry doesn't know his role. he gets the ball sometimes, but when he doesn't, there's nothing else. and now people are asking for him to be benched.

lee is now reduced to 20 mins a night, some nights 15. he doesn't know when he's gonna get minutes.

you want to say zach is the best big man we have? ok, fine.
you want to say adding zach adds "healthy" competition? ok, fine.

but ADDING zach makes eddy and lee expendable, which meant we STILL haven't established a core and a chemsitry b/c we are constantly changing the roles of our bigs.

it also tells me isiah doesn't have that much confidence in our "centerpiece" and dlee. so again, we're in this constant cycle of rotating pieces trying to catch lightning in a bottle.

the zach trade = NO STABILITY AGAIN.

DJ...I just amazed we are getting this from you...We were a 33 win team last year...We need improvement from every position....Lee and Curry was good last year but we were still a 33 win team....Zack is better than both...

How is it possible the guy who has played the hardest for the Knicks this year gets the most flack because this team does not have a winning record...How is it possible...

Zack has replaced Marbs as a lightening rod of anger on this board...How is it possible???

i have no problem with zach the player. i have a problem with zach the trade. zach > eddy + lee combined. so let's move them. but making that deal and then keeping both eddy and lee? that's downright retarded. now dlee's value is starting to decline, and eddy's opt out is looming.

if there's no follow up, the trade is still a bad one.

we are 5-10, the same record as lb's team in 05/06. but this team doesn't have 3 rookies getting major PT or a 50 lb overweight eddy.

[Edited by - djsunyc on 12-02-2007 1:16 PM]

Posted by holfresh:

Posted by djsunyc:

Posted by holfresh:

Posted by djsunyc:

alot was made of lb's lineup changes as people did not know their roles on the team.

last year, we saw eddy established as the "centerpiece". his role was to get the ball all the time down the court and score in the post. he wasn't asked to defend, he was asked to stay on the court and score. our guards knew how to play with him.

david lee came off the bench, got 30 mins and put up a double double. he knew he was getting those mins night in and night out so he knew his role.

trading for zach brought back the aire of instability and changed the definition of both eddy and lee's role.

the point is not whether we got a better player in the deal. the point is how does trading for zach impact the team. does it make the team better or does it make it worse.

curry doesn't know his role. he gets the ball sometimes, but when he doesn't, there's nothing else. and now people are asking for him to be benched.

lee is now reduced to 20 mins a night, some nights 15. he doesn't know when he's gonna get minutes.

you want to say zach is the best big man we have? ok, fine.
you want to say adding zach adds "healthy" competition? ok, fine.

but ADDING zach makes eddy and lee expendable, which meant we STILL haven't established a core and a chemsitry b/c we are constantly changing the roles of our bigs.

it also tells me isiah doesn't have that much confidence in our "centerpiece" and dlee. so again, we're in this constant cycle of rotating pieces trying to catch lightning in a bottle.

the zach trade = NO STABILITY AGAIN.

DJ...I just amazed we are getting this from you...We were a 33 win team last year...We need improvement from every position....Lee and Curry was good last year but we were still a 33 win team....Zack is better than both...

How is it possible the guy who has played the hardest for the Knicks this year gets the most flack because this team does not have a winning record...How is it possible...

Zack has replaced Marbs as a lightening rod of anger on this board...How is it possible???

i have no problem with zach the player. i have a problem with zach the trade. zach > eddy + lee combined. so let's move them. but making that deal and then keeping both eddy and lee? that's downright retarded. now dlee's value is starting to decline, and eddy's opt out is looming.

if there's no follow up, the trade is still a bad one.

we are 5-10, the same record as lb's team in 05/06. but this team doesn't have 3 rookies getting major PT or a 50 lb overweight eddy.

[Edited by - djsunyc on 12-02-2007 1:16 PM]

What is the problem with having three good players on the frontline....I wonder if Utah and it's fans has these issues with Millsap coming off the bench behind Boozer...You think they are up in arms saying Millsap needs to be traded...

there is no problem with 3 good players in the frontline. but we need some complimentary pieces. eddy and zach are not complimentary. again, i keep zach, but we need to trade eddy. and why trade lee? b/c we still don't have a start pg, sg, sf. we need some starters first before a big man off the bench. that's what i'm getting at.

the trade made no sense when it was made, and still makes no sense now b/c there was no follow up.

we trade for zach, then proceed to trade david for a point guard, and eddy for a big time SF and then everything falls into place. but that's not what we did. isiah had another "it's so crazy, it just might work" moments.

Posted by bitty41:

Posted by djsunyc:

alot was made of lb's lineup changes as people did not know their roles on the team.

last year, we saw eddy established as the "centerpiece". his role was to get the ball all the time down the court and score in the post. he wasn't asked to defend, he was asked to stay on the court and score. our guards knew how to play with him.

david lee came off the bench, got 30 mins and put up a double double. he knew he was getting those mins night in and night out so he knew his role.

trading for zach brought back the aire of instability and changed the definition of both eddy and lee's role.

the point is not whether we got a better player in the deal. the point is how does trading for zach impact the team. does it make the team better or does it make it worse.

curry doesn't know his role. he gets the ball sometimes, but when he doesn't, there's nothing else. and now people are asking for him to be benched.

lee is now reduced to 20 mins a night, some nights 15. he doesn't know when he's gonna get minutes.

you want to say zach is the best big man we have? ok, fine.
you want to say adding zach adds "healthy" competition? ok, fine.

but ADDING zach makes eddy and lee expendable, which meant we STILL haven't established a core and a chemsitry b/c we are constantly changing the roles of our bigs.

it also tells me isiah doesn't have that much confidence in our "centerpiece" and dlee. so again, we're in this constant cycle of rotating pieces trying to catch lightning in a bottle.

the zach trade = NO STABILITY AGAIN.

ISIAH THOMAS = NO STABILITY
As long as he remains in the head spot of the Knicks organization there will be no stability. So I don't hear anything about players because our problems begin and end with Isiah Thomas. So I will repeat.

ISIAH THOMAS = NO STABILITY, ISIAH THOMAS = NO STABILITY, ISIAH THOMAS = NO STABILITY

Okay are we clear now is that one indeniable truth in this mess that we all could agree on?

STFU AND GITT

All I will say at this point is watch your back