I would not have a problem with this move. Rose has become a non-factor. Since we have gotten Davis there is no need for Rose. Also, we need another player that can hit the 3 in clutch situations and play d. With Rose gone, atleast we don't have to worry about Rose taking minutes from Frye in the fourth quarter.
BigC's Knick blogs and Knicks
highlights after every Knicks game http://fromthebaseline.com/
AUTOADVERT
Killa4luv Posts: 27774
Alba Posts: 51
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261 USA
I doubt Armstron will be in the game in clutch situations, but I could live with him for rose. He is a vet, is fast as hell and could stabilize the O while the youngsters are in.
BigC Posts: 22672
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 12/14/2004
Member: #829
I doubt Armstron will be in the game in clutch situations, but I could live with him for rose. He is a vet, is fast as hell and could stabilize the O while the youngsters are in.
The way Larry has been making moves like starting Jerome James,or benching Frye when he is hot to put in Malik you never know. Also if we are down by three we don't have to many players that have a track record of actually hitting the big shot.
BigC's Knick blogs and Knicks
highlights after every Knicks game http://fromthebaseline.com/
crzymdups Posts: 52018
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/1/2004
Member: #671 USA
That article doesn't say Malik Rose FOR Darrell Armstrong, it says the Knicks are interested in Armstrong and they're shopping Malik. The two things aren't connected.
Also: 05-06 Salary Armstrong: 1.13 million Malik: 6.00 million
¿ △ ?
Knight Posts: 22775
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 7/21/2005
Member: #968
That article doesn't say Malik Rose FOR Darrell Armstrong, it says the Knicks are interested in Armstrong and they're shopping Malik. The two things aren't connected.
Also: 05-06 Salary Armstrong: 1.13 million Malik: 6.00 million
Too good to be true.
King1 Posts: 22993
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/2/2005
Member: #998 USA