Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by nixluva:

This debate is very interesting and both sides have made VERY good points. It's not like there's that much of a distance between each teams chances of improving as some would like to make it seem. I would only give the Knicks a slight edge, which no one has even bothered to consider. The way the poll is setup we can judge in degrees, only black and white better or worse. I'm not here saying that the Knicks chances are WAY better. I just feel that they're a bit better. WHY? Well i've stated it many times, but it doesn't matter since some of you think i'm lost and my points are without merit.

Why do I think the Bulls future is a bit less bright than that of the Knicks?:

1. The Bulls have Ben Wallace and still they look to be another GOOD player short in terms of being competitive. Not the difference between ECF Title, but being competitive with the top team in the East. Getting him has put them squarely in the right now category and not the long term future category. He's likely only got a few more years left of top performance. So they must get something done.
2. The Bulls most desireable player is Deng and they need help at PF/C. They likely can't improve the team via a trade for a stud without weakening the team somewhere else. Some have thrust Thabo and Tyrus into the argument to step up and fill the gap of a top player they'd lose in a trade, but they aren't substitutes for any of their top players right now. They have a LONG way to go before they would likely be considered on that level. Due to this they'd be weakening themselves somewhere else.
3. The Bulls can go for someone on a lower tier, but that's doubtful going to be enough to put them over the top against a team like the Pistons or Cavs.

Paxson is in a tough spot, cuz by not making the deal for Pau, he's boxed himself into a corner. Teams have seen that the Bulls are not strong enough to ever beat the Pistons as they are currently constructed. They must make a deal, cuz they can't waste the investment in Wallace. If i'm a GM i'm demanding Deng, cuz Ben Gordon is a small SG and not a player that can really make a difference in the playoffs like Deng. So what will Pax do? It's most likely that he'll keep Deng and go for a lesser player and hope that will be enough. I don't think it will.

In terms of the Knicks:

1. We have a center who can dominate. He's flawed, but still young enough to have a long run with and hopefully develop his game further. We simply need to continue to develop the players we have and look for players that will make this post offense work better.
2. We have Lee, Balkman and Collins and I believe that these players will help this team to have a better defensive presence, which we need. Now we need a strong PF and there's the option of making a deal for a guy like JO. in that deal we may have to give up Lee, but he plays the same position and thus we wouldn't be weakening the team in any deal for him IF we had to include Lee.
3. We really don't have to make the deal for JO, since this team isn't a "RIGHT NOW" team. Most of our players are younger and thus if we wanted to we can continue to go with youth. Develop Morris and our pick in this draft and wait for 2009. There's no pressure on this team to win 50 games and the closer we get to 2009 the fans will be WELL AWARE of what the teams situation will be in that year. So again there will be more patience and no pressure as we wait in anticipation of cap flexibility.

AGAIN the Bulls MUST look to make a change that will catapult them to the ECF and a chance to go to the Finals. IF they don't make the right move they fall short and thus that future is not so bright. You don't get brownie points for being an also ran for a few years. This is the danger they're in right now. The next deal they make will be a franchise altering move and we aren't at that point with this team. Our options are open and we don't have that pressure to make the finals right now.

Nixluva, with all due respect, this has to be the worst post in the history of message boards everywhere. Do yourself a favor and scan your own post for relevant facts. The count won't be very high. You're manically transferring your desperation to the Bulls and, as great as that defense mechanism is for your mental health, its sucks for reasonable debate.

It seems like the mainstay of your unconvincing argument is that there is this unquantifiable but cataclysmic pressure on the Bulls to do a patchwork job around Wallace. I would be tactful here except there's no reason to be - thats bull****. Your claim that the Bulls can't beat the Pistons in the future, despite better picks and cap space to spare, is equally lunatic. Its unreasonable to believe that Wallace is going to attempt to twist management's proverbial arm when the core of the team very obviously consists of 5 young players, including 3 future all-stars. Look carefully for just one moment and you should be able to see how amazingly better the Chicago pipeline is in comparison to our group of one-dimensional players. This isn't a subtle argument. Its not close. Its black and white. In your face. No questions asked.

Again, 'Luva, you might be a great fan, but its unfortunate that you can't be honest with yourself. Take, for example, your speculation in another thread that Marbury will have a good shelf life of atleast another 5 years. If Marbury, despite ankle injuries and now a chronic knee injury, has 5 more good years left, there is no reason to shortchange a relatively injury free Ben Wallace, when his efficacy is based on hustle. But, lets forget even that inconsistency. An even more egregious double standard is that you believe there is no pressure on the Knicks to win now. Despite the fact that the Bulls have shown unflappable patience in the past and the Knicks management, especially under Isiah, have consistenly shown the impulsivity of the average 4 year old, you continue to loudly proclaim that better decisions will be made. Despite the fact that the Bulls are almost entirely a young team with 2 veteran players, you believe that a mystical pressure will haunt the Bulls. The reality is that the Knicks have astonishingly fewer assets on which to rely and the pressure of inescapable mediocrity is FAR greater for the Knicks. The Bulls, you should remember, are already a top 3 team in the conference. And the pressure to "get over the hump" is much less than the pressure not to lose regularly and embarrassingly and regularly at home, a specialty of the Knicks. The deafening boos at the Garden over the past 2 years should help you understand that. Moreover, any pressure, perceived or real, on the Bulls is alleviated by the incredible assortment of assets and options at their disposal.

Lets get back to Marbury. Why is there not an equal pressure on the Knicks to do a patchwork job around him? He's getting old and his knee looks like a bowling ball half the time. Applying equal standards to both teams, the truth is that the Knicks are the one's in the bind. When Ben gets worse, they still have Tyrus, Sefalosha, 3 all-stars and draft picks. The Knicks have 0 all-stars and a scrap heap of overrated talent.

So, really, the Bulls will be just fine. They may get to the finals repeatedly over the next decade. The Knick's on the other hand are likely to go "all in" for Zach Randolph. Keep in mind that starphuching was invented in New York.

He's the King and Queen of Double Standard once again I ask how is it we can compare our future with the Bulls but couldn't compare our season with the Raptors?

My stance that Steph can play for a few more years (and I don't recall saying FIVE more years) is that we have a guard who can give Steph a break from having to log heavy minutes. Right now Nash and Kidd are both older than Steph and both have had health issues too. Steph can prolong his career by finally having some help at the point. We can make that assessment in 2 years. If he can't help this team then we'll let him go. Somehow tho, I think he'll be able to play like he was before we had the injuries. He didn't have to carry the offensive load and could just manage the game.

We aren't under pressure to do a patchwork job around Steph cuz NOW our most important player is Curry and Steph's career is coming to a close. If we want to we can cut ties with Steph at the end of his contract. The thing is that we have shifted the focus of this team from the present to the future. Sure we want to win as much as possible right now, but not at the expense of our future.

I think that for some unknown reason, there's a joy that some of us take in degrading our own talent. Ty Thomas and Sefalosha are great prospects, but our own guys are just OK. It's an accepted fact that Kirk, Ben and Deng are future All Stars and none of our guys has a chance to be that. Not Curry or Lee. Those guys are garbage I guess?

Exactly what pressure do the Knicks have right now in comparison to the Bulls. The expectations for the Knicks haven't been raised significantly. Whereas the Bulls have made the 2nd rd and added a right now stud in Wallace. How can they NOT take action and support those 2 aspects by making a move to get to the next level? Their fans and media are already murmuring about the lost opportunity when Pax didn't get Pau when he had a chance. They'll be even louder this off season, when things heat up and players start moving. They won't be able to just sit still and not feel the wrath of their fans and media. NY doesn't have that same pressure.

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by tkf:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by tkf:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Better in 2yrs

Marbury or Hinrich=Hinrich
Jamal or Gordon=Gordon
Q or Deng=Deng
Lee or Nocioni=Wash.... maybe Lee edges him out
Curry or Wallace=I'll go ahead and say Chubby
Francis or FA=FA
Nate or ?=Nate
Jeffries or Sefolosha=Sef
Balk or Thomas=Wash
Frye or Draft pick=Unknown
Collins or Duhon=Wash
Morris or ?=Morris


I just don't see how any sane human being can think otherwise.

[Edited by - TrueBlue on 05-14-2007 11:51 AM]

that has to be the most ridiculous thing I have seen posted on any board, anywhere in the last 7 years....

You bash nixluva, but you will go to any length to degrade the knicks, and no one is saying the knicks are great or even a good team at this point, but you seem like you have to bash the knicks to justify your unhappiness, and your helplessness regarding this team. I think it is ridiculous.. you are actually comparing francis to a FA the bulls might get? come on!!!

I actually thought he was being generous to the Knicks. I would have picked a draft pick over Frye, Nate, and Francis. Frye and Nate are inferior to the average player you'd get in a 1st rd pick. (That's why they weren't even close to making the rookie-sophomore game.) And Francis is awful.

my lord, I won't touch this one... ok bonn... whatever....

Just tell us *why* you disagree with any of my statements. It is a *discussion* forum after all!

bonn, what you said makes no sense, and really I like to engage in good, spirited intelligent conversation. what you wrote was just silly, no offense man, but just read what you wrote..

Frye and Nate are inferior to the average player you'd get in a 1st rd pick. (That's why they weren't even close to making the rookie-sophomore game.)

I mean this is ridiculous, frye was in the running for rookie of the year until he knee was taken out by barret and nate. He was one of the top rookies in scoring and rebounding. Nate, regardless of what you feel about him is one of the more talented players you will find in the first round, any pick, don't let his on the court stupidity at times blurr your thinking. Nate can play. but that is besides the point, look at the draft over the past few years and then look at what you posted. doesn't make sense

and wasn't frye in the rookie game, his rookie year?

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by tkf:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by Masterplan:

^^^ BlueSeats, to be fair, the argument was that Knicks *fans* are better off than Mavs *fans* who have to put up with a 67 win team choking in the playoffs. i think it's bogus, but they weren't arguing that the actual Knicks team is even comparable to those guys.

I guess everyone has their own way of looking at things. I just don't get why a fan would feel better about a team that won 23 and 33 wins vs one that went to the finals and then won 67 games. But, to each their own.

blue, I think that if the mavs were in NY, the forums would be going crazy with threads to trade the whole team, dirk sucks, blow up the team and start over, we will never be a championship team, we are the best 67 win team in history to be bumped in the first round, I mean these boards would be a mess!!!! So what I think is that some people including myself just don't see the mavs as a championship team, and although we are not even a playoff team, we do have a team with a good amount of players who still have their best years way ahead of them, and for that reason, there is some hope that this team can add a player here and there, hope our young guys reach their potential and maybe one day become a contender for the championship.You know it is the very reason why some people would rather have a lottery pick over a player like like elton brand, because with the unknown there is always that hope for greatness. While on the other hand, where does dallas go from here? they are a veteran team, not much young talent,over the cap and built around a player who can't deliver them a ring. I am not saying that we are a better team or in a better situation but I think most NY fans feel that in our current situations there is that glimmer of hope of reaching that championship level whereas dallas will soon be at a crossroad of remaining a good regular season team that can go but so far in the playoffs or a team that needs to take a few steps back and retool. Just a theory of mine...


[Edited by - tkf on 05-14-2007 10:37 PM]

I understand what you are saying, and I admire your optimism, but we've been a lot closer to the bottom of the league than the top, and everything you say can apply pretty equally to all the lottery teams, especially those with picks. At what point does objective analysis outweigh subjective dreaming?

I'm not saying the Knicks are garbage and can't/wont do better than they've done so far, but based on some of the polls lately I think many fans here think the Knicks are better situated than all teams but the Spurs and Pistons, if them. I know we have some kids with upside, but how much upside? Which Knicks do you have the most hope/faith in and what do you project their reasonable upside to be?

What's Lee's realistic upside = Buck Williams? That would be awesome! but as GREAT as Buck was, he was purely complementary player. What about Mardy Collins = Ron Harper? Balkman = Tyron Hill? Frye = Keith Van Horn? Curry = Kevin Duckworth? Jamal = Ricky Davis?

I think these are reasonable comparisons, they're not mean to slight anyone. I just don't see that adding up to a whole lot. Sure, with the right coach and some lightening in the bottle a squad like that can make the playoffs and win around, but contenders? That's gonna take a whole lotta luck, and I don't see how were any better situated for luck like that than any other team in the league.

curry= Kevin Duckworth? come on blue, curry is much better now than duck ever was. duckworth was not the athlete or offensive player curry is, I mean the difference between the two is galactic, not even close.. LOL... You had me going until that one. seriously I see your point, and I am not saying that the upside of these guys are even that high, but we don't know, but what we do know is that they all have tremendous upside, they are good kids and they seem to want to work hard and get better, I will roll with that anyday...

BTW: give me a team with buck williams, ron harper and KVH and you have a good starting point right there.. I will take that....

Posted by tkf:

curry= Kevin Duckworth? come on blue, curry is much better now than duck ever was. duckworth was not the athlete or offensive player curry is, I mean the difference between the two is galactic, not even close.. LOL... You had me going until that one. seriously I see your point, and I am not saying that the upside of these guys are even that high, but we don't know, but what we do know is that they all have tremendous upside, they are good kids and they seem to want to work hard and get better, I will roll with that anyday...

BTW: give me a team with buck williams, ron harper and KVH and you have a good starting point right there.. I will take that....

Hehe, Duckworth was actually a slip up, I meant Darrel Dawkins, but didn't bother to change it.

It's actually hard to think of a player very similar to Curry. I don't really remember Dawkins' D, so I don't know how similar they really are, but he was a low IQ backboard breaker, which is the best comparison I could come up with. I don't really remember what cut his career short either. He was fun to watch in his day, but to me he was more spectacle than anything else. He was built like Wes Unseld, but he was no Wes Unseld.

Yes, Buck, Harper and KVH is a good starting point. They'd make a nice compliment to Jordan and Pippen, or Shaq and Kobe, but as the best players on their teams they'd be sub-mediocre.

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by tkf:

curry= Kevin Duckworth? come on blue, curry is much better now than duck ever was. duckworth was not the athlete or offensive player curry is, I mean the difference between the two is galactic, not even close.. LOL... You had me going until that one. seriously I see your point, and I am not saying that the upside of these guys are even that high, but we don't know, but what we do know is that they all have tremendous upside, they are good kids and they seem to want to work hard and get better, I will roll with that anyday...

BTW: give me a team with buck williams, ron harper and KVH and you have a good starting point right there.. I will take that....

Hehe, Duckworth was actually a slip up, I meant Darrel Dawkins, but didn't bother to change it.

It's actually hard to think of a player very similar to Curry. I don't really remember Dawkins' D, so I don't know how similar they really are, but he was a low IQ backboard breaker, which is the best comparison I could come up with. I don't really remember what cut his career short either. He was fun to watch in his day, but to me he was more spectacle than anything else. He was built like Wes Unseld, but he was no Wes Unseld.

Yes, Buck, Harper and KVH is a good starting point. They'd make a nice compliment to Jordan and Pippen, or Shaq and Kobe, but as the best players on their teams they'd be sub-mediocre.

Darly Dawkins is coaching somewhere I think. I forgot what cut his career short, but I do think curry was even a better player and athlete than he was. anyway good point, with these types of players you still need that jordan and pippen or shaq and Kobe, that is one way, or you can hope to add two really good players to that core and become the pistons. I honestly don't think the knicks will be in position to get lebron or even draft a star, so my hope is that we can put together 5 really good players and mimic what the pistons have done.. I can live with that..

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by tkf:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by tkf:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by tkf:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by tkf:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Better in 2yrs

Marbury or Hinrich=Hinrich
Jamal or Gordon=Gordon
Q or Deng=Deng
Lee or Nocioni=Wash.... maybe Lee edges him out
Curry or Wallace=I'll go ahead and say Chubby
Francis or FA=FA
Nate or ?=Nate
Jeffries or Sefolosha=Sef
Balk or Thomas=Wash
Frye or Draft pick=Unknown
Collins or Duhon=Wash
Morris or ?=Morris


I just don't see how any sane human being can think otherwise.

[Edited by - TrueBlue on 05-14-2007 11:51 AM]

that has to be the most ridiculous thing I have seen posted on any board, anywhere in the last 7 years....

You bash nixluva, but you will go to any length to degrade the knicks, and no one is saying the knicks are great or even a good team at this point, but you seem like you have to bash the knicks to justify your unhappiness, and your helplessness regarding this team. I think it is ridiculous.. you are actually comparing francis to a FA the bulls might get? come on!!!

I actually thought he was being generous to the Knicks. I would have picked a draft pick over Frye, Nate, and Francis. Frye and Nate are inferior to the average player you'd get in a 1st rd pick. (That's why they weren't even close to making the rookie-sophomore game.) And Francis is awful.

my lord, I won't touch this one... ok bonn... whatever....

Just tell us *why* you disagree with any of my statements. It is a *discussion* forum after all!

bonn, what you said makes no sense, and really I like to engage in good, spirited intelligent conversation. what you wrote was just silly, no offense man, but just read what you wrote..

Frye and Nate are inferior to the average player you'd get in a 1st rd pick. (That's why they weren't even close to making the rookie-sophomore game.)

I mean this is ridiculous, frye was in the running for rookie of the year until he knee was taken out by barret and nate. He was one of the top rookies in scoring and rebounding. Nate, regardless of what you feel about him is one of the more talented players you will find in the first round, any pick, don't let his on the court stupidity at times blurr your thinking. Nate can play. but that is besides the point, look at the draft over the past few years and then look at what you posted. doesn't make sense

and wasn't frye in the rookie game, his rookie year?

Why not use the most recent year for an evaluation? Surely that's more relevant than more distant years. And why would these guys not make the rookie/sophomore game if they were good better than the average 1st round pick? It makes no sense to say (like you are saying) that a player is above average from a certain group (i.e., his draft class) and then to acknowledge that experts didn't even vote him to be one of the dozen to represent the group.

bonn, these guys are not 10 year vets, they are sophmores, what are you talking about recent year evaluation. I dont think the average rookie drafted in the first round will come in and even have the years nate and frye had, and they had by their past play last year, a "bad Year"..

So by your logic if a player has a bad year or down year, he is no longer a good player? right? So we can safely say, andrew bynum is garbage? is that it? Or Charlie Villanueva?

No, all I was saying was that you can't ignore the most recent year and Frye and Nate were below average among their class. Do you really think a team would give up a mid 1st round pick for Nate??? I doubt they would for Frye either but there is an outside chance. I'd rather have the pick and get someone who is mentally tougher.

despite popular belief frye and nate are good players from good programs, there is no way to tell outside of durant and oden that you are going to get a player who is better than frye or nate in the draft and that they will be mentally tougher. there is no way to tell that.... You can hope, that is all...

Posted by EnySpree:



Anyway, the bulls if anything did a good job of picking some heady, pro-ready players. As far as a structured team they are just lucky as all hell. Who would have thought Ben gordan would be a all-star calibur shooting guard.

the GM that took him 3rd overall

Posted by McK1:

Posted by EnySpree:



Anyway, the bulls if anything did a good job of picking some heady, pro-ready players. As far as a structured team they are just lucky as all hell. Who would have thought Ben gordan would be a all-star calibur shooting guard.

the GM that took him 3rd overall

paxson's draft picks:

2004: hinrich (2nd round - austin, bonner)
2005: gordon, deng (2nd round - duhon)
2006: no picks
2007: tyrus, thabo

the guy knows how to draft