Exactly what I meant. We didn't trade much talent for Marbury so most would expect bigger results than what we got. We also traded less talent for Crawford so most would expect bigger results than what we got. Because we are getting more talent back.

But again like I said maybe Houston and TT's problems offset the impact or something.

Posted by misterearl:

Has anyone bothered to mention that Mo Taylor is 6'9 and just 29 years old?

Has anyone mentioned he's got inside post up game we desperately need and shooting 70% from the field as a Knick?

Has anyone thought that he could find a basketball home in New York away from the annointed Jeff Van Gundy?

Nah, lets talk about Mo Taylor's salary instead.

It's a work in PROGRESS people. For all his bleatings about Isiah as a disaster even fish.mike cannnot provide one single example of an NBA franchise going from the outhouse to the penthouse in one season.

Or can he?

instead of playing mo taylor, why not give sweets 10 more minutes a game and the other 5 to malik rose? does mo give us more than an extra 10 mins of sweets?

i don't think so.

but he DID take away some options this summer. that i do know.

we lost 20 ppg and 8 boards in TT and h20 combined going down (modest estimates).

Forget about Houston's crunchtime experience (maybe could have reversed half of the last second and late game collapses?)...not to mention fugazi's family problems...I'm not even sure if I could work through that let alone play through having to suddenly support my nieces and nephews practically overnight.

In regards to Zeke, I liked this article about how golden state is now following the knick (and zeke's) blueprint.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/story/287620p-246257c.html

Interesting...

Say What?

>>but he DID take away some options this summer. that i do know.

Would you rather have a team of guys who can play or guys that suck?

We are one year removed from Clarence Weatherspoon, Shandon Anderson and Howard Eisley and some folks treat it like a reason for a funeral. Too bad they believe mean-spirited and resentful hacks like Mitch Lawrence

The Knicks are playing WITHOUT Allan (who needs to shut it down for the season) Houston, played a chunk of games without Jamal Crawford and WITHOUT the tall, talented Tim Thomas (depression & miscellaneous body parts)

I ain't sweatin' the draft OR this Summer League.

C- Jacke Butler/draft pick/Bruno Sundov F- Mike Sweetney/draft pick FA, F-Trevor Ariza G- draft pick / FA G- Jermaine Jackson/ FA

Enjoy The Ride





[Edited by - misterearl on 03/07/2005 16:57:26]

earl... why is Mo Taylor any better than Eisley, Anderson or Spoon for that matter? What Mo done those guys havent?

Posted by fishmike:

earl... why is Mo Taylor any better than Eisley, Anderson or Spoon for that matter? What Mo done those guys havent?

Come on, is that a serious question? Look, Mo T is overpaid, no question. What distinguishes him from Layden's zombie corps, though, is that he can actually ball a bit. When was the last time ShanEisleySpoon averaged 17ppg as a featured player in an offense? Granted, it's been a while since Mo T has done that himself. But he's done it, and he's off to a pretty good start as a Knick as well. So far he's shown us that he certainly isn't a plodding, bricklaying scrub.

Not to mention that Mo T is under contract here for a total of two seasons. ShanEisleySpoon all had in the range of 5-7 year contracts when Layden brought them in. Sorry, there is really no comparison here.

Posted by newyorknewyork:

Exactly what I meant. We didn't trade much talent for Marbury so most would expect bigger results than what we got. We also traded less talent for Crawford so most would expect bigger results than what we got. Because we are getting more talent back.

But again like I said maybe Houston and TT's problems offset the impact or something.

So the less you give up the more you expect back? That's why we should have had better results from the two trades? I don't get it. Maybe we should have traded Brewer. That would be giving up very little and we could have gotten a huge amount back by that theory.

I'm sorry, but when people say that max value in a trade is somehow not related to basketball, and that not liking this trade somehow looses you street cred, all I have to say is, how idiotic are you people?

you're leaving out the biggest difference of all. The fact that Spoon is a 6'5'' PF at best while Mo Taylor is a legitimate 6'9'' taller than Kurt Thomas

Posted by fishmike:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/863/career
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3184/career

well.. one thing I can see is one guy is clearly a better rebounder, but there is striking similarity here. Looks like the big difference is Mo is paid more

If all we gave up were Baker and Norris for 'Spoon, I would be slightly against the trade too, but it would be so minimal that I wouldn't spend more than one or two sentences on it, except maybe to laugh at other people who somehow thought keeper Gin Baker and Moochie was essential to our franchise.

[/quote]
So the less you give up the more you expect back? That's why we should have had better results from the two trades? I don't get it. Maybe we should have traded Brewer. That would be giving up very little and we could have gotten a huge amount back by that theory.
[/quote]

We gave up way less talent then we got back in the Marbury & Crawford trade but took back way more talent. But the WINS(RESULTS) haven't followed. So anyone who is pissed has a legitimate beef. When you trade what we traded for Marbury and Crawford most would expect more of a jump in the win % then what we got. So I could understand why there are people who don't feel everything is peaches and cream.

Me personally I think a shotblocker or 2 and a long distance sharpshooter or 2 would put us over 500.