marbury really looked great out there the past two games. he seems to be settling down and running lb's set plays much better. the most impressive thing about his season so far is his committment to defense. he's REALLY locking down and giving it his all on the defensive end. and we really are killing him out there when we don't put craw on the court. he's the sole person handling the ball and we're playing him 40 mins a night.

i still think this team would run better with craw initiating the offense early and steph at the SG. i think we really benefited from a WEAK defensive team in sacratomato last night. i think that's the only way we got away with starting Q and steph out there without another ball handler. any other team that was more athletic would've probably pressed steph a little more and forced the others to make plays.

with that said, i still think marbury, albeit playing better within the system, is the now and not the future.

i don't know if jamal will be the starting pg of this team or a guy off the bench (the microwave) but the future really is jamal, ariza, frye, and curry. those guys are the building blocks here. nate, lee, butler - those guys are nice pieces and role players but i think they can be moved if need be. but the four i mentioned before are the future.

so the question still becomes...do we play it out with marbury as a piece here? or do we go true rebuild? or do we stick with steph for another year before moving him out?

i mean, craw seems to be taking the ben gordon role down the stretch here. he's the one taking the jumpers (which are starting to become more and more reliable) and floaters and he's HITTING them. he's hitting clutch shots and clutch free throws. so if craw is emerging as the go-to-guy, then is marbury really worth the $16+ mil he is on the cap?

it's always tough to move a talent like him. and it's even tougher to talk about it after some solid games and a win none-the-less. but at the end of the day, i still don't think he'll be part of this when we're ready to contend, so i am still in the camp of moving him for picks and expiring deals.

wait till 07, hopefully our pick will have been used by then

interesting question dj. i'm nowhere as high on craw as you are. i still think he has the potenetial to play himself right off this team. i haven't closed my book on him but i don't have trust in his game at either the 1 or the 2.

as far as the building blocks, i see them as frye, curry, reezy, nate and lee. i think once larry/isiah get setteld re: wheat to do w/malik, ad and mo, you're going to see lee move permanently into larry's rotation and i think he's going to be great. meanwhile, nate imo is going to be what you now envision jamal will be. as for jackie, i'd love to see him get the chance. he very well might be the goods for the future too.

we're still carrying an amazing amount of expensive deadwood but i'm thrilled about our young bucks.

Posted by Marv:

interesting question dj. i'm nowhere as high on craw as you are. i still think he has the potenetial to play himself right off this team. i haven't closed my book on him but i don't have trust in his game at either the 1 or the 2.

as far as the building blocks, i see them as frye, curry, reezy, nate and lee. i think once larry/isiah get setteld re: wheat to do w/malik, ad and mo, you're going to see lee move permanently into larry's rotation and i think he's going to be great. meanwhile, nate imo is going to be what you now envision jamal will be. as for jackie, i'd love to see him get the chance. he very well might be the goods for the future too.

we're still carrying an amazing amount of expensive deadwood but i'm thrilled about our young bucks.

marv, it's not that i'm super high on jamal crawford. it's just that i view him as a player that really is slightly higher basketball wise than the 3 rooks. yes, craw has been in the league for 5 years, but after one year of high shool ball, one year of college, and 5 coaches. his development was nowhere near that of frye, lee, or nate. so to me, i view craw as a baby just like the other guys. he's getting paid alot more but i always thought of him as a $56 mil lottery pick the year we didn't have one.

so imho, it's time to turn the page on the pg situation, let steph run wild at the 2, and see if craw can handle it. like i said, craw may just be a 6th man and i can also see him giving lb fits but if you notice everything lb says about him, and how he's constantly coaching him on the bench, he sees him as a player he can mold.

so, after a loss we trade steph and after a win we trade steph.

When do we actually get to keep our star player and see what he can really do...the knicks have been better in every game. Crawford is not ready to lead a team, however, he can save a team.

Marbs is playing superbly, and his stats have only been getting better...he hits his free throws and he's got last year's average.

The rest of the rotation settles and we have an identity as a team and marbs can start to assert himself.

I still see missed opportunities and turnovers by the "supporting cast", and those plays don't even involve marbury (blown alley oops, mis-communication on passes, etc.).

Just say you don't want marbury on the team DJ, but don't keep trying to sugar coat it with "we will be better off if" and "I like his game but".

The same song is getting tired.

Marbs is 28, he's the veteran star on the team, and he deserves to lead his home town team to the promised land.

Shit, you guys let ewing play in a wheelchair before you realized he was never going to win a big game for us, so now you won't even give marbs a chance to try?

[Edited by - rvhoss on 11-14-2005 10:42 AM]

Posted by Killa4luv:

DJ, this is short-sightedness at its best.

I truly do not see Craw as our full time PG. We won that game last night with Steph running the offense down the stretch, and Craw playing the 2. It was successful. They both played their parts in getting us over the hump last night. I think our offense needs them to play it intemittenly. If Steph was at the 2 coming off of picks and taking it to the lane I think that would have worked just as well.

-Being a good team is our first step and you dont accomplish that by moving your best player for picks and cap. You move an expiring deal for picks if you want them. Not your best player, thats retarded.

We have a PG who is 28 and is top 3 in his position by any objective standard.

A 'TRUE REBUILD' is laughable! I think losing the first 5 games shows you how new yorkers would respond to that. It cannot happen and it would be a foolish step backwards when we have the oppurtunity to devleop young players while also being a very good team.

It can be done and is being done. As Q gets more and more healthy, and Frye,Curry,Ariza and Butler develop this year, our team gets better and better.

Your weekly rant about moving Marbury and Steph not fitting and so on, is illogical. Crawford has a long way to go but he came up big in the end of that game. Marbs was consistant throughout, played tough D, and lead by example.

The bottom line is this:
We are building something here. We have one of the best coaches in the game, one of the best players in the game, and nice collection of young talented players who are hungry, and some of whom can develop into some damn good players. Why tamper with that? Why not see what LB can do with this? It is illogical to turn your best player into picks and an expiring contract when you don't even know how good this team can be. WTF?



[Edited by - killa4luv on 11-14-2005 10:36 AM]

killa, i see what you're saying in your argument and i understand that point of view. there's always two sides to a discussion.

as for crawford, i don't know if craw could ever be our full time pg...i just don't know. but, imho, i would like to find out. that's all i'm saying. he could be a flop, and be nothing more than a sixth man...or he could play his way out of town also. i just don't know but it still comes from my belief that steph should play more of the sg role. i really think we benefitted from a weak unathletic defense. any team with an athletic backcourt would be pressing steph and taking it out of his hands (ala the wizards) and without craw out there, we'd be toast. the matchups helped us yesterday but over the longhaul, i don't see it. is it coincidence that our first win came against a non-athletic team? every other team we played were athletic and with steph running the point, we were slowed down.

as for a "true rebuild"...this IS NOT a true rebuild, that's why we all go nuts. hey, we'd probably go nuts regardless BUT if it was a true rebuild, and we dumped all the ad's and rose's and the other dogs, and just went with the young guys (something that has not happened here..ever), i think we all would know that there's a light at the end of the tunnel and our reactions would be different.

if this was the lineup for the first five games, craw, q, ariza, frye, curry with nate, lee, and butler off the bench and we went 0-5...our reactions would be 100% different.

i don't think it's shortsightedness at all. yes, this is THE defining season for steph as a pro...but look at what happened in pheonix. they played together (steph, amare, marion) for one year, just one year, and almost took the spurs out. they were the NBA DARLINGS the entire summer. then amare gets hurt and they decided to DUMP steph. they didn't decide to chalk it up as a losing season and just do it again the next year with that trio...they decided to dump him. why? was colangelo short-sighted or did he see that there was no long term value in keeping steph around as the point guard?

i love steph as a player and believe he's been underutilized his entire career with the shackles of being a pg. but if he's not moving off to the SG role full time...then we need to eventually turn the page as his days of "running a team" are really over.

I don't think trading Marbury now is a good idea either way.

We are not going to get equal value back. IT said we are not ever gonna get under the cap. So they would only trade Marbury for other players near his level and picks, and right now it arent gonna happen.

His value will skyrocket the frist 3 game winning streak we get into. Just watch, it will be "oh, Brown has transformed Marbury into a true PG, what a great player he is now". Regardless if you agree with that or now, but if you are to trade him, trade him when his value is high, not at an alltime low.

Posted by djsunyc:

as for crawford, i don't know if craw could ever be our full time pg...i just don't know. but, imho, i would like to find out. that's all i'm saying. he could be a flop, and be nothing more than a sixth man...or he could play his way out of town also.

Ok so let me get this straight, turn our best player (who is top 3 at his position) into dust for the hopes that a talented, but erratic younger guy matures into a player that is maybe comparable to him? NO thanks. I'll pass on that one.

i really think we benefitted from a weak unathletic defense. any team with an athletic backcourt would be pressing steph and taking it out of his hands (ala the wizards) and without craw out there, we'd be toast. the matchups helped us yesterday but over the longhaul, i don't see it. is it coincidence that our first win came against a non-athletic team? every other team we played were athletic and with steph running the point, we were slowed down.

Wrong again. We could hve one every single game we played athletic backcourts or not. We didn't have all cylinders clicking. We had usually Steph and one other player playing well, and LB trying to force us to go to Curry like hes Shaq or something. Is Mike Bibby unathletic? Bonzi? Kevin Martin? We beat them because we played tough defense, got alot of easy points, and our core players played well. Don't downplay that W with an argument about athleticism. You act like it was Howard Eisley & Michael Finley out there.

as for a "true rebuild"...this IS NOT a true rebuild, that's why we all go nuts. hey, we'd probably go nuts regardless BUT if it was a true rebuild, and we dumped all the ad's and rose's and the other dogs, and just went with the young guys (something that has not happened here..ever), i think we all would know that there's a light at the end of the tunnel and our reactions would be different. if this was the lineup for the first five games, craw, q, ariza, frye, curry with nate, lee, and butler off the bench and we went 0-5...our reactions would be 100% different.

The garden would be empty and money would be lost. It cannot happen this is a pipedream.

Furthermore, we would suck with that lineup, where we could be a really good team as currently constructed.

i don't think it's shortsightedness at all. yes, this is THE defining season for steph as a pro...but look at what happened in pheonix. they played together (steph, amare, marion) for one year, just one year, and almost took the spurs out. they were the NBA DARLINGS the entire summer. then amare gets hurt and they decided to DUMP steph. they didn't decide to chalk it up as a losing season and just do it again the next year with that trio...they decided to dump him. why? was colangelo short-sighted or did he see that there was no long term value in keeping steph around as the point guard?

i love steph as a player and believe he's been underutilized his entire career with the shackles of being a pg. but if he's not moving off to the SG role full time...then we need to eventually turn the page as his days of "running a team" are really over.

Why rebuild and suck, when you can have developing young players and still be tough? Its illogical. I dont give a damn what Phoenix did or what their logic was, we are not Phoenix.
Their situation is not ours, and should not dictate what we do. Using that logic we shouldn't have Curry or Craw cause they weren't good enough for Chi.

Its becoming more and more apparent that you just don't like Steph because your arguments are not logical for why we should move him. You just want him gone. You have no solid argument for why he should go. We have LB here, a good team around him, and we should defintiely see where this goes, which I think is deep into the playoffs.



[Edited by - killa4luv on 11-14-2005 11:40 AM]

Why trade Marbury? The same reasons few teams are interested in him.

[Edited by - Knight on 11-14-2005 11:41 AM]

Steph was great and should improve from there. No buts about it!!!

Stephon's a keeper.

The whole point is a young team developing together noone says Steph will be crap at 32 actually if he buys into Larry's system, it will definately prolong his career a bit. But I would definately say that the minute Crawford starts to unseat Steph (if that happens) Steph should be moved.