since we are stinking up the court and we have all of these analysis of what went wrong, it got me thinking. what if benard king did not get hurt and had a healthy and long career with new york? the obvious thing is that we wouldn't have patrick ewing ( probably he would have went to golden state because i think they had the second pick). do you think that we would have definately won a championship. or would king have been another victim under the tyranny of #23? would king have been as big as bird, magic and his airness? would he have been better to build a team around than ( gasp!) ewing? i am not sure if this question was asked before but it is very interesting. i have a feeling things happen for a reason and there is always a ripple effect ( the sociologist in me, sorry). did one injury change the history of the knicks for the better or worse?

This post strikes a chord with me. Bernard is my all-time favorite Knick. Patrick is my 2nd favorite. Thing is, Knicks were pretty thin in Bernard's day. And there were some truly great teams in the league. Indeed, what made Bernard so remarkable is that, virtually on his own, he made us competitive with Larry's Celts and the others. So I can't imagine the Knicks would have become a championship team had he stayed healthy and we never got Ewing. And while Ewing never brought us the trophy, his teams had some great years which were a lot of fun for the fans. So, I guess I agree with you. Things -- even awful things like Bernard going down -- happen for a reason.

Posted by Panos:

Here's another injury with ripple effects:
Glen Rice's planar fasciatis helped get him traded for
Eisley and Shandom, completing one of the worst series of
events for this team, from
an expiring Ewing contract -> 2 highly overpaid scrubs.

Well my day is ruined since I had to think about that series of events again.