I don't hate Marbury fool.

I care about the Knicks.....not about individual players unless they're legit Superstars.

Ever heard of addition by subtraction?

Guess not....b/c in your world, we shouldn't give up Steph unless we're getting 100% value back in return.

That's just not the way it works in reality stupid.

Did you conveniently ignore the Baron Davis example?

Did you conveniently ignore the fact that the team doesn't respond to him that well on offense?


Yup....guess so.

Posted by bobs3304:

I don't hate Marbury fool.

I care about the Knicks.....not about individual players unless they're legit Superstars.

Ever heard of addition by subtraction?

Guess not....b/c in your world, we shouldn't give up Steph unless we're getting 100% value back in return.

That's just not the way it works in reality stupid.

Did you conveniently ignore the Baron Davis example?

Did you conveniently ignore the fact that the team doesn't respond to him that well on offense?


Yup....guess so.

I see, so I guess we all should be trading Steph for Speedy Claxton? Get real. The Hornets made that trade because they were losing so bad that they weren't making enough of a profit. So they traded a max player for a player with a much lower salary just to free up some space, because the New Orleans idea has worked TERRIBLY. They can't afford expensive players because they're not drawing in fans. Get it? I'm sure glad you're not GM.

If the best offer for Marbury you can get is Al Harrington, then YOU DON'T TRADE MARBURY. Nobody is saying 100% value in return, but Al Harrington isn't even 50% value! Again, you have to be realistic. As for our "offensive response", do you realize that we've only played two games this season? We have a new coach, a very different cast from the beginning of last year and everyone is getting used to the new environment. People in pre-season preached patience with this team. All the sudden, two games into the season, everyone has 1-5 players that they've already decided should be GONE RIGHT NOW. Holy f'n hell guys. Hand off the panic button! Geez!

Posted by bobs3304:

^ Marbury has had issues with teammates on and off the court throughout his entire career genius.

I'm not talking about just now.

I'm talking about last year.

I'm talking about the year before that.

I'm talking about in New Jersey, Pheonix, and Minnesota.


WAKE UP. Marbury kills the flow of the offense and has so his entire career. Unless an offense is PERFECTLY tailored to him like AI was in 01, then forget about it.

[Edited by - bobs3304 on 11-05-2005 8:22 PM]

I see, so you honestly think a lineup of Nazr, KT, Tim "Vagina" Thomas, Jamal Crawford and Marbury was good, except that Marbury isn't a team player? So, had we traded Marbury for say, Speedy Claxton, we would've won the NBA title last year, right? Addition by subtraction, hey you said it...

Thanks for clearing it all up for us, bobs.

As for the "once Marbury leaves, the team gets better theory," Minnesota became a better team because KG got better. New Jersey became a better team because they got Kidd, who is better than Marbury. Phoenix became a better team, because they got a better PG in Nash, Amare grew quite a bit from the year before, and they added Q. Let me make this perfectly clear: unless we're getting a stud in return for Marbury (e.g.: not Al Harrington or Speedy Claxton) the Knicks would GET WORSE by trading Marbury.

Posted by bobs3304:

No stupid.

Christ.

You just don't pay attention.

My arguement isn't that we will necessarily get BETTER without Marbury. My arguement is that Marbury isn't the answer for this team, and that in the long run, we will be far better off without him.

Although yes, it's still very possible depending on the trade that we will stay the same or even improve without him.

Believe it jocker.



[Edited by - bobs3304 on 11-05-2005 8:39 PM]

I see, so not only does Marbury hurt us in the win column, but he also prevents the young Knick players from developing. Thus, if we trade Marbury, they will be free to develop without Marbury, that evil troll, blocking their development. Wow, thanks for the enlightenment.

"If bobs had long hair-and a goatee,
and if eyes were pretty glazed-if he looked spaced out,
would you buy his story,
would you believe he had an eye infection.

and yeah yeah, bobs looks baked,
yeah yeah, bobs smells bad,
yeah yeah, yeah yeah yeah.

what if bobs smoked cannibus,
hit the bong like some of us,
drove a tye-dyed microbus,
and he subscribes to rolling stone(d)."

I think bobs does smoke cannibus.

THe knicks are Isiahs canvas to paint his masterpiece and while we can all point to the players, its Isiahs ensomble.