There are'nt enough to go around. One of the several reasons I back trading Marbury is b/c minutes will be scarce for Crawford. IMO, he deserves atleast 30 MPG, but with Marbury starting at point, and Q at SG, how many minutes do you expect Crawford to see? I'd say 20-25 tops. Timmy and Ariza will combine for about 35-40 MPG at SF, with Q spending around 5-10 minutes there.

Let's say Marbury gets 35-40 MPG this season. Excluding Nate, that leaves 10 Minutes for Crawford at Point, and around 15 Minutes at SG. IMO, 25+ minutes is not enough for Crawford. He should be seeing just as much playing time as Richardson.

And I don't think I even need to say anything about the PF situation. Let's just say it's basically necessary for Isiah to move 2 of them this summer.

Not lookin good...

there's still hope Isiah will make more trades to balance out the roster

Posted by bobs3304:

By doing what? Trading Crawford, Q, or Marbury. Well, apparently, Marbury won't be dealt according to most of you. And we JUST GOT Richardson, so I highly doubt Isiah would turn around and ship him off. And Zeke, I believe, make a personal promise (not in writing) that he wouldnt deal Crawford after only 1 season...

The PF situation, as a matter of fact, is less of a worry for me. I'm way more concerned about the glut at guard...

I don't think so. The froncourt is a much weaker than our backcourt. Our backcourt is good enough to win with a dominant frontcourt player. The problem is we don't have one.

Crawford will only help us from the PG position but we already have Marbury and Nate. Someone is only playing 10mins a game. no PG in the league will be able to defend the 6-5 Crawford and he will disrupt smaller PGs defensively. Having the 6-5 180LB Crawford at SG is a disaster. We have to trade him to a team in need of PG so that we can get Nate minutes and win games. Crawford has a lot more value right now because of his decent contract in a market that's grossly overpaying for guards

Posted by bobs3304:

So what you're saying to me, to all of us, is that Isiah should trade Crawford and NOT Marbury.....


K, sorry man, but I don't see that happening. I know it'll be far easier to deal Crawford b/c of his contract, but I was under the impression that he was Zeke's baby...

Just for arguement purposes - explain to me exactly which team YOU have in mind as trade partners and for who. And do me a favor - how is it that Isiah would trade Crawford in the first place? I thought he wanted to try a 3-guard rotation? This is all really ****in confusing.

Dolan would trade Crawford before he trades Marbury. It comes down to what Dolan wants. Its his money on the line

I think Isiah invisions Nate at PG with Marbury at SG as opposed to Crawford at PG so either Crawford or Q could very well be traded. Unfornately it won't be Marbury and his $22million

but even more realistic i can see Nate being buried on the bench as with every rookie that plays with New York are. Especially with Herb coaching

i don't see this as a "glut" at guard, we have 2points and 2shooting guards. nate won't get that many mins anyway, he's good but he is still a rookie that needs to adjust. marbury will get the bulk of the mins at the point and craw & q will split time at the 2, ala badboys pistons 3guard rotation. also remember last year when craw went down, what happened? we crumbled because we had noone else. plus they can all play some point. why is this a bad thing? maybe q can even see time at the 3 if we trade fugazy.

Posted by daddynel:

i don't see this as a "glut" at guard, we have 2points and 2shooting guards. nate won't get that many mins anyway, he's good but he is still a rookie that needs to adjust. marbury will get the bulk of the mins at the point and craw & q will split time at the 2, ala badboys pistons 3guard rotation. also remember last year when craw went down, what happened? we crumbled because we had noone else. plus they can all play some point. why is this a bad thing? maybe q can even see time at the 3 if we trade fugazy.

we crumbled because we didn't have a frontcourt also and still don't. We were 16-13 after beating terrible teams early on with Crawford

Posted by bobs3304:

Posted by daddynel:

i don't see this as a "glut" at guard, we have 2points and 2shooting guards. nate won't get that many mins anyway, he's good but he is still a rookie that needs to adjust. marbury will get the bulk of the mins at the point and craw & q will split time at the 2, ala badboys pistons 3guard rotation. also remember last year when craw went down, what happened? we crumbled because we had noone else. plus they can all play some point. why is this a bad thing? maybe q can even see time at the 3 if we trade fugazy.

I already broke down the minutes. Crawford, with the way things look right now - will get 25+ mins. MAX.

Q WILL play some SF, but with Ariza and TT, it'll only amount to around 10 mins. a game. Marbury will get around 40 MPG, and Nate will see limited action (unfortunately). On both sides of the ball, Q is the more potent player, so Crawford's the odd man out. I think Crawford would benefit by playing mostly at the point, but with Marbury here, the most he'll see is 10 MPG there. If anything, the guard situation is MORE of a glut than the PF one. Sweetney and JYD will be easier to let go, from an impact standpoint. Crawford could become something special, but with less playing time than he deserves, that'll never come to fruition.


Boooo.

good point, but what i'm saying is that I HOPE we trade TT. also marbury does'nt need to see that many mins. that was the original reason for craw coming. keep marbs rested and give him 30-35 mins TOPS.

if Marbury gets 35 MPG, then I think Crawford could sneak in 30 MPG, which, in that case, would be fine with me. Only problem is that Nate would see limited minutes, like 5 minutes or less...


I don't see Timmy getting traded. I think Isiah's focus right now is to deal 1-2 of our PF's and pickup a legit big man that can play both sides of the ball, especially defense....

edit: Unless of course, we're talking about a trade for Gasol. Ehh, I actually don't like Gasol's game, but I'll take improvement any day of the week

[Edited by - bobs3304 on 07/09/2005 16:43:17]

Posted by daddynel:

Posted by gunsnewing:

Posted by daddynel:

i don't see this as a "glut" at guard, we have 2points and 2shooting guards. nate won't get that many mins anyway, he's good but he is still a rookie that needs to adjust. marbury will get the bulk of the mins at the point and craw & q will split time at the 2, ala badboys pistons 3guard rotation. also remember last year when craw went down, what happened? we crumbled because we had noone else. plus they can all play some point. why is this a bad thing? maybe q can even see time at the 3 if we trade fugazy.

we crumbled because we didn't have a frontcourt also and still don't. We were 16-13 after beating terrible teams early on with Crawford

i did'nt exactly say that we were having a hellified season when craw was playing, i'm saying we COMPLETELY crumbled when he went down. if your offense consists of only two players,(and realisticly that's all we had) and one goes down w/an injury, it's obvious your up shlts creek.

true our offense did consist of only 2 guys last year. But you agree that the frontcourt was a bigger problem right? And all we did was add Frye who is not that much difference than KT offensively