Hey, I was thinking about this--- why do Anderson and Eisley get a such a bad rep--- is it strictly because of their contracts?

While's he's no Jason Kidd, Eisley is a respectable starter--- he's a more complete player at this stage than Mark Jackson, Chris Childs, Rod Strickland, Damon Stoudamire, Antonio Daniels, Jamaal Tinsley, and Kenny Anderson.

He's better than anything Orlando, Washington, Boston, and Denver had to offer last year.

He's not too far from the Eric Snow level of steady PG, and I'd put him on par with guys like Jeff McInnis and Alvin Williams.

He's your average Rory Sparrow/Greg Anthony type of guy. Solid player, but nothing exceptional. Flashes of brilliance, doesn't always finish on the break, good defense, average playmaking, decent from 3...

Yes, Eisley is that bad. He's probably the worst passing pg in the league, and takes TONS of contested 3's. He's an average ball handler. He dribbles a ton and very fast, but doesnt really go anywhere. He cant finish around the basket and is a VERY streaky shooter.
Anderson is a much more valueable player, despite his contract. Eisley would be cut if not for his contract. Both he and Anderson are examples of players that thrived in a system in Utah and havent played well outside of it, although Anderson was much improved.

Eisley had a career year last year, this is as good as it gets. Dreadfull.

i think eisley greatest skill his his ability to hit the 3 pointers but he he still isnt worth what he is being payed.... Billups for example has a smaller contract than eisley, with all that said, i rather have a disatisfied glen rice on the bench than having the salaries of anderson and eisly because rice's ends very soon.

Granted, Eisley is a bad value for his production, especially in the current NBA salary climate... but then again, you could say that most of our players are paid "too much"...

The only players with reasonable (bargain) salaries are those with rookie deals, Kurt Thomas, and perhaps Doleac.

However, in the case of Thomas, the Knicks lucked out--- he developed quite a bit after signing his contract.

The bad plan was overpaying to attract solid proven players in or just past their prime to support star players. This was seen as expensive, and reduced risk. But by reducing risks, you reduce upside rewards. so it was no rookies.

As Briggs has said in the past "no pipeline" with an eye to the future.

It kept a consistant product in the floor,and kept season tix up.

People were almost guaranteed a good show (competitive team).

Cambys failure (or managements ability to come to reality)to pan out left only spree and H20 as only legit "stars" to support.

Laydens subsequent moves did not help at all.

Funny, in the end, JVG reluctance and non-approval of Camby was correct. Camby got JVG into the finals, and a healthy contract, but ulitmatly contributed to our being undersized. He also had no trade value with his injured past. That, and LJs premature back problems, Luc Longley never able to contribute in a support role due to injury also killed us on the court and our finances.

I remain hopeful the youth movement is legit, and lack of deals points to a an evaluation that "if there are no good deals, then don't do a bad one." By that, if our players have little value and Laydog can't get younger and more athletic, then its best to ride out those contracts and keep building in the draft. I can accept progress despite a losing record if there is hope.

Eisley is another Knicks SG who is forced to play PG. He would really be good backing up H20 at the 2. But he is definately a horrible point guard, and we're forced to keep him until the end of his contract