I truly am open to trading anyone except Eddy Curry. This is a failed model of players accumulated over 4 years. Way to many max players flipped around and horrible use of the MLE--we did NOT need Zach. We need to rebuild the entire guard and wing positions and likely that may cost us David Lee but at this point --IF I received the right package back--I would deal him. We need a 4 who can compliment Eddy--do the things he doesnt do--especially block/intimidate the lane a bit.
The new guard crew needs more speed with two-way--effecient skills. We need a 3 position who is 6-8 and skilled who can score. Q Rich is done/cooked over--might as well play chandler and see what he can do because its more than q. Why arent we in position to give a Chandler a darn serious look and an avenue to develop quicker--we sck! It's an imaginary scenario that this sht is turning around--so much is wrong here it's not a salvageable product.


The faster the Knicks management realize this is a failure that has no chance of surviving--the faster they can start doing some things to turn around.


What is a hinderance? Im sure Jimmy D doesnt want to be proved wrong counting on IT and doesnt want to look dumb paying IT and LB 50mm + for nothing--THEN have to fork over big bucks again for a new guy. Im sure even Jimmy D has a $$$ breaking point. He thinks somehow this is going to turn around like the Rangers have if he has patience--but it's two very seperate entities. In basketball you either have the right stars or you don't and if you dont you will lose or stay mediocre. People have paid for their tickets and while they may suffer

some in other areas--the bigger money with these contracts probably supercede other revenues for the company. In other words fck the fan. We tried.

Massive flush and fill--that is the only logical route---this has been 4 years of throwing bad money[and loads of it] at other bad dollars spent. Need to stop the cycle and get IT the heck out.

Eddy Curry is one of the softest people in the league. Don't tell me he bangs down low. He's fat, so he doesn't feel much down there. He doesn't rebound at all and plays poor defense. He can't block a shot. He can't pass out of a double team. He commits stupid turnovers. His only strength is offense. That's it. He has no other skills. He is not a player you look at and say "I am keeping him at all costs." Actually, it's quite the opposite. The league may not have big men his size anymore but they also don't have soft faties who can't rebound the basketball at that size either.

briggs, why would you keep curry, and then trade for a guy to make up for his deficiencies at the expense of david lee? My ideal situation would be to start lee at PF, get a guy like okafor to play center, and then get some very competent wing players. Lets chandler and balkman fight for the SF position, the loser will be the backup, but that position would now be strong... Get a legit SG in here and hope we win derrick rose in the lottery...

Posted by martin:

Posted by tkf:

briggs, why would you keep curry, and then trade for a guy to make up for his deficiencies at the expense of david lee?

i had the same question.

It would appear that Lee has more value (especially when you consider his contract) around the league. So we could get more for him.

As bad as Curry's all around game has been, if you put a Tyson Chandler type player beside him, he'll thrive. For all of Currys short comings, the one skill that he does posses, is rare in this league. To shoot 60%, and be virtually unguardable one on one in the paint, forces the other team to gameplan for him.

Dont want to sound like I prefer Curry over Lee, but just tryiing to look at it from Curry's perspective. The way things are now, I'm not tued to any particular player. They can all go for the right pieces to help turn this thing around.

since Curry is not a play-maker with the ball, over the course of a game the three second rule, zone D, and double-teams nullify Curry's 1-on-1 oof-ense

Posted by tkf:

briggs, why would you keep curry, and then trade for a guy to make up for his deficiencies at the expense of david lee? My ideal situation would be to start lee at PF, get a guy like okafor to play center, and then get some very competent wing players. Lets chandler and balkman fight for the SF position, the loser will be the backup, but that position would now be strong... Get a legit SG in here and hope we win derrick rose in the lottery...

A few things with Curry. I know what he can do and what he can't. Curry is a *lock* to get me 20-25[and that should be 25-28] points at nearly 60% and should rip me down 7-8 rebounds per 35 minutes. He's still ONLY 24 and it takes big men much more *time* than smaller players. If he lost 20 pounds I think he would be in optimum shape and be able to increase productivity on the D and rebounds. In this league where it is so hard to find a good big man--you dont throw a guy like Curry away at 24 years old--you just don't. You need to bring in guys to compliment his superior offensive skills and help his defeciencies[and make sure he works hard within to imporove]. Zach Randolph and David Lee are NOT 5's. I DO NOT want to trade David Lee--it would have to take one heckuva package to even get me to listen but I would listen. Everyone else is crp at this point until proven otherwise and it isnt happening with guys like marbury JC q malik--they are done they are dead weight to the franchise.
Zach Randolph was a STUPID trade I said it when he was traded and I say it now because he is a chemistry breaker. We DID have some chemsitry on this team last year and WE WOULDVE made the playoffs IF JC did not get hurt. I know Channing Frye wasnt very good[although they are playing to his strengths in Portland and he is playing WELL in his role] but could we have gone another route when we wanted to trade him? Zach is better BUT DOES NOT make the team better--we are WORSE because of Zach. He takes away from what Curry and the team was building on. The Knicks would have been better off using Channing and our pick to move up to take Sean Williams. We were not risking very much. We didnt want Frye anymore and pick 19? We already have David Lee and Jefferies who can play next to Curry.. We needed a shot blocking compliment and a whole new set of guards and a 3--and while we did draft a true 3 we dont even play him.I think he can do better than what q did and has done this year NOTHING.

Eddy Curry is trash im sorry.

Does anyone actually think Curry is an improved player from who he was in his final two seasons in Chicago?

Curry's value was highest either at the trade deadline last year or this off-season, when I said many times that we should have traded him. Now his value's much lower. I think the best we could get for him would be an expiring contract and a late 1st round pick, and I'd gladly do that.

Briggs I already tried to give you hints on Curry last weak you don't build around a player who doesn't make his teammates better, plays only one way, and one in whom you have to acquire several players to mask his deficiencies. Once again EY should be the reason players get contracts not the reason they get traded. Your credibility takes a hit with this thread. EY isn't worth falling in love over, he's 1 of Top 3 players that needs to go.

I would keep Curry also, I keep hoping he will rebound and block shots and maybe he will someday. He can give you 20 or more per night, he could give 25 to 30 when this team learns how to move the ball. Curry isn't the only one not defending the post on this team. I also agree that everyone on the team is tradeable but I would keep Curry.