Posted by fishmike:

that was Bonns point not mine, but if thats all you did it wouldnt be a problem. You hate Isiah with a passion. Any move he has made or will move you swear is bad and is further ruining the franchise. Its old and boring because your arguements are always the same and there is a double standard which I pointed out earlier.

I like talking about basketball, but any kind of impartial discussion is impossible w/ you because your hatred for Isiah is plain, so I chose to not bother and post somewhere else.

You make it sound like I'm all alone in these thoughts when that's hardly the case. A lot of people have expressed the same thoughts that I have and if its a legitimate argument then how can it be old or boring?

If you don't want to discuss basketball with me, that's fine, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't badmouth me to others just because you choose not to. Everyone here is fully capable of forming their own opinions. That goes with Bonn since I'm sure he's reading this.

As far as your double standard, those players you mentioned are all overpaid and their current teams were all unwilling to pay them the money that they were seeking. That doesn't mean that they're useless as players but they aren't the type of players that you build your franchise around. Sheed is a dysfunctional player but he was put in a place where he respected the coach and some of his teammates and it was a good fit, personally and on the court. At least for 3 months last season. Put him on a bad or mediocre team that's rebuilding and I'm sure he's going to be the same old problem child Sheed.

Guys...can we stop the non-basketball conversations and get back to talking about the Knicks. Rest assured Martin and I will not let any poster degrade the level of discussuin in the forum.

Posted by Andrew:

Guys...can we stop the non-basketball conversations and get back to talking about the Knicks. Rest assured Martin and I will not let any poster degrade the level of discussuin in the forum.

No problem. Sounds good to me

Posted by simrud:

Everybody can relax about the forum going down because of a couple of posters, we've survived much worse in the few years that I'v been postin here, I mean for those who still rememer, it don't get much worse then Playa posting the same crap under 10 different handles.

Ohhh so Playa also posted here? I understand and agree with this point so much! Its painful...

Personally, I don't think there is a poster on these boards that disagrees with Islesfan more - with regard to Isiah's moves, assessment of players, assessment of our team, a good "rebuilding" plan, even what constitutes a good team.

But, despite causing digressions on a number of topics, he really isn't culpable of anything. He hasn't been rude or offensive (from what Ive seen). And he is more than free to express his opinion. If he somehow reduces an unrelated topic to "bashing" Isiah, he does it at the risk of being ignored. If he makes assertions without an inkling of evidence, he does it at the risk of losing all credibility. Thats his prerogative.

But there is no reason at all for other posters to leave since no one is compelled to read his posts. Moreover, there are tens of other posters whose positions might seem more relevant or insightful depending on individual preference. Read my posts, or Briggs's posts, or TMS's posts or Fishmike's posts. Whatever you like.

One of the things I like about these boards is the diversity of opinion. And while he has yet not convinced me of an iota of his argument, he is part of a minority and he is not at fault for that. Unfortunately, Isles doesn't seem to like answering questions, making his stance rather difficult to understand. Isles - you can start with those questions I asked you in the previous post.

[quote]
Posted by islesfan:


Ok, now let me answer your questions so you can sleep better at night.

[quote]

Some of your reactions really crack me up. I come on here approximately once every day or two, some days more, some days not at all. Today, I only had time very late after dinner to read some posts. So you had many waking moments to answer a few questions. From the few posts I read, you seemed more preoccupied in answering some side issues instead of the basketball questions I posed.

But, I am pleased that you finally decided to answer them and I have MORE RESPECT for your position as a result. Atleast strategy-wise, there is some credence to your method. But, in my opinion, its very risky to rely on the glamour of NY as free agent bait. Also, there aren't that many players in the league better than Marbury. The timing of salary maneuvering and availability would have to be downright perfect to net a top-5 player in the league. Even with salary space, there is no guarantee in terms of acquiring those type of players - look at the Clippers and the Suns with the Kobe situation.

Maybe one of the reasons we disagree is I don't necessarily think you need the best player to manufacture the best team. My method is based on a vision of a team construct that maximizes the differential between offense and defense. Hence, I think a team with the additions of Crawford, Walker, and Dampier enable a great offense with sufficient defense - enough to plow deep in the playoffs.

Moreover, your method degrades the team for a long period of time without guaranteed reward - a high risk situation. Acquiring young, talent with expiring contracts worked with Marbury and perhaps now Crawford. Keeping the team competitive doesn't preclude us for improving long-term in my opinion.

btw, it IS funny how all of these "self explanation" threads started about a week or so ago and it's not a coincidence...

[Edited by - djsunyc on 07/28/2004 00:33:08]

Some of your reactions really crack me up. I come on here approximately once every day or two, some days more, some days not at all. Today, I only had time very late after dinner to read some posts. So you had many waking moments to answer a few questions. From the few posts I read, you seemed more preoccupied in answering some side issues instead of the basketball questions I posed.

Since you asked me those questions I had been on a few minutes before dinner and just before I went to sleep. Those are the waking moments I had to answer your questions and I got sidetracked by personal attacks which I chose to reply to first. Sorry if I couldn't accomodate your need to be taken care of immediately. I hope you can handle not being first every now and then. I'm sure the fact that I'm answering your post first this morning will please you greatly and hopefully you'll think better of me, at least for a few minutes.

Atleast strategy-wise, there is some credence to your method. But, in my opinion, its very risky to rely on the glamour of NY as free agent bait. Also, there aren't that many players in the league better than Marbury. The timing of salary maneuvering and availability would have to be downright perfect to net a top-5 player in the league. Even with salary space, there is no guarantee in terms of acquiring those type of players - look at the Clippers and the Suns with the Kobe situation.

I wasn't relying on solely the glamour and marketing aspect of being in NY, although I personally think that that's a huge asset. Obviously the money would have to be at least equal to other offers and there has to appear to be a plan in place where the team is looking to contend sooner rather than later. At this point, seeing how you can't change the past, rebuilding around Marbury would be a plus, assuming they can do it while he's still relatively young and healthy. I completely agree that there's a certain amount of luck involved in the timing of signing free agents and drafting high in the right drafts but that's just part of the game. Although you can plan on which free agents are coming out each year, like next year is supposed to be a pretty good.

Maybe one of the reasons we disagree is I don't necessarily think you need the best player to manufacture the best team. My method is based on a vision of a team construct that maximizes the differential between offense and defense. Hence, I think a team with the additions of Crawford, Walker, and Dampier enable a great offense with sufficient defense - enough to plow deep in the playoffs.

I don't think that you need THE best player to build the best team but it certainly doesn't hurt to have either one of the very best (Spurs, TWolves, Miami, Pacers, Nets) or a few of the best (Pistons, Kings, Mavs) to be legitimate contenders. I agree though that it's not just about one or two players but the overall construct of the team, one that focuses on both the offense and the defense. Even with those additions that you mentioned I don't consider that a great offense because of a lack of balance. You have a lot of shooters but you're still lacking a big man who can post and draw double teams. I know Walker can post up on occasion but he seems to prefer chucking it from 3 point land. Dampier is a solid rebounder and defender when he wants to be but his offensive game is still pretty raw. Defensively that team would be pretty bad with just Dampier and maybe Marbury being at least an average defender.

Moreover, your method degrades the team for a long period of time without guaranteed reward - a high risk situation. Acquiring young, talent with expiring contracts worked with Marbury and perhaps now Crawford. Keeping the team competitive doesn't preclude us for improving long-term in my opinion.

First of all, nothing is ever guaranteed. My way isn't and the way we're trying to build now isn't. I also don't think it's any more risky than capping yourself out far into the future and leaving yourself with just expiring contracts to rebuild. Like I've said in the past, expiring contracts, while having some value, aren't going to get you the top players but rather the players whose current teams don't want to keep. In the right situations those players can be a big help but only when you're at the level where you're just 1 piece away, like the Pistons were when they acquired Sheed. Keeping the team competitive by overpaying for players, as in the proposed deals for Crawford and Dampier could definitely preclude us from improving long term.

i disagree. you have yet to tell me a team that completely blew it all up and got back into the finals mix within 3 years. indiana is one that rebuilt on the fly and it wasn't a lucky deal, it was a very smart deal that showed vision on donnie walsh's part. they were in the finals in 2000. they then traded dale davis (an integral part of the team) for j o'neal. then smits retired. they made a trade for jalen rose and then moved him for artest and miller. they didn't get under the cap. they just re-signed their own players and made smart trades. that's rebuilding on the fly.

the rockets and spurs drafted their franchise superstar to win titles. jerry west traded divac for kobe and shaq all but said he was going to LA his final year in orlando. detroit could've gotten major cap space by letting grant hill walk, but they didn't want that. so they traded him for ben wallace. all of these teams re-built on the fly.

can you give me examples of teams that went with the tear down to get cap space? secondly, layden filled this roster with so many overpaid scrubs that it was almost impossible to trade them. in fact, their only value came when their contracts were expiring.

Rockets were a 4-5 year lottery team before getting lucky enough to win it, draft Yao and move forward from there. The Spurs didnt exactly go down to lottery status. They won 60 games the year before. Robinson went down for the year, they were terrible, won the lottery and drafted Duncan. Where would the Spurs be now if they had the #2 pick and come away with KVH instead of Duncan?

West getting Kobe for Divac was obviously one of the best trades ever, but Shaq wanted to come to LA to make records and movies. Also that deal was pre-current CBA.

Detroit is the best example, because they WERE stuck in mediocrity and chose patience. They had a core of Ben Wallace, Atkins, Stackhouse and change. They went 32-50. The next year they added Cliff Robinson and hired Carlisle. They went 50-32. Those were the only 2 major changes. Once they started winning it was easier make deals. They traded Stackhouse for Rip. They signed Billups to the MLE. They got better, they stayed healthy they were patient.

This, like all arguments with you comes down to one thing however. Can Isiah turn over this roster and give us a young enough and solid enough core to win and continue to build around? Obviously you have stated clearly you can see him doing anything positve at all, and have put a negative spin on everything Isiah related. What I like about Isiah is having any plan is better than no plan. He's won NBA titles, has been a premier player and a leader and knows the league. It doesnt give me a ton of confidence, but it does give me some hope.

However I'm not going to sit here are harp about how an GM that inherits a roster w/ Ward, Eisley, KVH, Anderson, Houston, Spoon, Harrington, Deke isnt doing a good job 6 months after he's been in office. Its just silly, plain and simple.

I am the only one here that has defended you in the least despite the fact that we can't even seem to agree on what time of day it is. The least you can do is answer a few questions to make your own argument semi-viable. If you have a problem with that, then posting here is probably not the best idea. Not answering those questions is a disservice to your own argument, you're not doing me any favors.

Umm what questions haven't I answered? It seemed that the only thing troubling you was the timeliness of my responses. Geez, talk about getting your panties in a bunch.

Only a championship isn't guaranteed with either method. Being a very competitive, entertaining team is ensured by my method. Lottery status is immediately guaranteed by your method.

If being a very competitive and entertaining team is "ensured" by your method then why don't all teams do that? IMHO I don't think anything is ensured either way. I just think the odds of building a championship contender are better with cap space, young talent and high #1 draft picks.

You've said in the past, expiring contracts, while having some value, aren't going to get you the top players. Marbury is a top player - I though you conceded that when you said "rebuilding" around Marbury was ok.

Did Marbury get traded for just expiring contracts or did they have to include top young prospects and 2 #1 picks? I did say that rebuilding around Marbury was ok, because at this point you can't undo what's already been done and have to move on from here. My problem with getting Marbury wasn't that we got him, but that we gave up too much for him. Those trade pieces would have come in handy in making other deals this offseason when it seems that we're short of tradeable assets.

[Edited by - islesfan on 07/28/2004 11:44:57]