Posted by Bonn1997:

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

Which will be a lot easier to do if he doesn't have to set up the offense and bring the ball up under pressure. If he stays, will he be a go to guy? Yes.

Posted by Rich:

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.

You're gonna have to elaborate on that answer because my simple mind has no idea how it addresses my question.

Posted by Rich:

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.

he's not but does he have to be? when you have KG, Curry, Crawford, Wally, Q & Larry Brown and the potential of trading Marbury in the offseason if need be?

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Rich:

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.

You're gonna have to elaborate on that answer because my simple mind has no idea how it addresses my question.

My point is merely that because of the combination of his overwhelming size, strength, and skill, Shaq is the most unguardable player in the NBA. So while the Heat would be better over time if they didn't make the trade based on age alone (although I'm not that high on Odom or Butler), the chance to add Shaq while getting to keep Wade makes it more than reasonable to seek the short term benefit of obtaining Shaq.

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.

right and you can always do that and bring in a PG who can run the plays. BOTTOMLINE IS YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO GET A PLAYER LIKE KG, YOU DON'T THINK TWICE ABOUT IT IF YOUR GOAL IS BECOMING A SERIOUS CONTENDER!

Posted by Rich:

Once you add KG and Wally (< 0 cap room ever), and with the dearth of picks, and without Frye, how do you get better?


[Edited by - Rich on 11-21-2005 10:10 PM]

Posted by Rich:

Posted by gunsnewing:

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.

right and you can always do that and bring in a PG who can run the plays. BOTTOMLINE IS YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO GET A PLAYER LIKE KG, YOU DON'T THINK TWICE ABOUT IT IF YOUR GOAL IS BECOMING A SERIOUS CONTENDER!

Once you add KG and Wally (< 0 cap room ever), and with the dearth of picks, and without Frye, how do you get better?


[Edited by - Rich on 11-21-2005 10:10 PM]

Use future expirng contracts and the MLE wisely. People asked the same question about Marbury. "If you give up all that for Marbury, how can you ever improve the team?" And now less than 2 years later, look at how many young players the team has who can improve the team.

Posted by Rich:

Right, three more years after this one. The Knicks will be stuck with a team that can't get better because they lack picks, cheap young high ceiling players, and expiring contracts.

As I said, Frye is a deal breaker.

Thats how it usually is after you win a championship
With KG/Mars/Curry/Craw/Q and LARRY BROWN the Knicks will have won one.



[Edited by - nyk4ever on 11-21-2005 10:19 PM]

My point is merely that because of the combination of his overwhelming size, strength, and skill, Shaq is the most unguardable player in the NBA. So while the Heat would be better over time if they didn't make the trade based on age alone (although I'm not that high on Odom or Butler), the chance to add Shaq while getting to keep Wade makes it more than reasonable to seek the short term benefit of obtaining Shaq.

My point is merely that because of the combination of his overwhelming size, strength, and skill, Garnett is the most unguardable forward in the NBA. So while the Knicks would be better over time if they didn't make the trade based on age alone...the chance to add Garnett while getting to keep Marbury and Curry coached by Larry Brown makes it more than reasonable to seek the short term benefit of obtaining Garnett.

Posted by gunsnewing:

aren't we stuck with that right now with Marbury as the best player on the team by default and no lottery pick? You want to be in the lottery again next year and the year after that while KG goes to NJ or Detroit and wins it all a few times over?

Posted by Rich:

I want to add a true PG to this core.

It that's what happens, so be it.

So you think adding someone like Eric Snow or Chris Duhon is going to have a greater impact than Kevin Garnett?