[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

sorry, but Isiah's been a disaster
Author Thread
martin
Posts: 69117
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
3/8/2005  2:46 PM
Posted by fishmike:

dont worry about Sweetney.. he's a goner. No way he survives this offseason unless Isiah is OK with starting the year with 5 PFs. The other 4 probably arent going anywhere.

you think Sweetney has a better chance than KT of being gone?
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
AUTOADVERT
rvhoss
Posts: 24943
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/2/2004
Member: #777
Switzerland
3/8/2005  3:09 PM
yeah, i think everyone in the league wants sweetney (low salary, high upside)...and if we want to win now, we may have to part with him.

However, if we are happy with another year of entertaining bball, we may just have a spot for him on this squad and try our luck with the draft.

based on the fan reaction tot he rose and mo t trades, I don't think many GM's are chomping at the bit to obtain them.

TT and Penny? gotta take back to give out (from what I've been reading) so ...

In an ideal world, TT continues to step it up and we begin to play like we were supposed to before the january of hell.

And maybe we already have a good team for another year...I mean, would we have beaten miami or detroit even if we had a shot blocking center?

Who knows.

But I like this bunch for some deranged reason and am looking forward to seeing how this season turns out...

GO KNICKS.
all kool aid all the time.
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
3/8/2005  3:17 PM
Posted by fishmike:
Posted by tkf:

great posting fellas, tom I agree with your post, I am willing to see what happens this summer.

fish I do like marvin williams a lot, but a question I have is this, lets say we get williams, who IMO has franchise potential, what do you do with ariza? move him to SG? and if so, what about craw? well I guess those are good problems to have...
Why do we have to do anything with Ariza? He's not ready for starters minutes anyway and you keep him. He can play the 2 or the 3 at any given time on the floor. Maybe if he gets stronger he gets time at the 4 in small line ups like Marion does.

I still see us in the mode of stockpiling talent so I dont care. I would stay away from a PG or a PF but aside from that I'm taking the best player at the 2/3/5 I can get.

good point, I guess there is nothing wrong with stockpiling talent, especially young talent..
Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
fishmike
Posts: 53198
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
3/8/2005  3:17 PM
Martin... its hard to think he will be here. Looking at every player and every scenario I just dont see him sticking. Rather he gets more minutes to really pump up his value and we move him in part of some package. I love Mike's game but with Rose and Taylor now in the mix the bottom line is he's expendable. I'm sure Isiah wont move him for the sake of moving him... otherwise KT would be gone already. But where as Sweetney may have been untouchable I'm sure he most certainly will be available for the right deal next year.
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
gunsnewing
Posts: 55076
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 2/24/2002
Member: #215
USA
3/8/2005  3:23 PM
i think KT/Rose/JYD and maybe Taylor with be gone before Sweetney. I'd like to hold onto Taylor until his expiring year when he'll be over 30.

out of all those guys sweetney and taylor are the youngest and best
newyorknewyork
Posts: 29869
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #541
3/8/2005  4:05 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by newyorknewyork:
---------------------
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.
-------------------
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.
[/quote]
----------------------
We went from winning in the low .300s to upper .400s. Wins have come as a result of the Marbury trade. When you add Marbury to a team winning 32% of its games, you're not gonna get the team to play consistently above .500. Marbury's a stud, but he's not Shaq or Garnett or Duncan.

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 03/08/2005 10:07:30]
[/quote]

424. isn't upper 400s. And I never said we should consistantly be over 500. I said if we add a shotblocker and a outside shooter we could be over 500. Plus we didn't just add Marbury we also added Crawford & JYD & Ariza. Plus they had training camp together.

So back to my original statment based on results none of the trades were special even though we gave up way less talent than we got back. In the Marbury & Crawford trade.

On our PFs. I don't see Isiah moveing Sweetney unless its for a good center and if thats the case than I have no problem with it. Penny/TT/JYD/KT will be shopped and packaged with draft picks.
https://vote.nba.com/en Vote for your Knicks.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
3/8/2005  4:22 PM
Posted by newyorknewyork:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by newyorknewyork:
---------------------
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.
-------------------
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.
----------------------
We went from winning in the low .300s to upper .400s. Wins have come as a result of the Marbury trade. When you add Marbury to a team winning 32% of its games, you're not gonna get the team to play consistently above .500. Marbury's a stud, but he's not Shaq or Garnett or Duncan.

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 03/08/2005 10:07:30]
[/quote]

424. isn't upper 400s. And I never said we should consistantly be over 500. I said if we add a shotblocker and a outside shooter we could be over 500. Plus we didn't just add Marbury we also added Crawford & JYD & Ariza. Plus they had training camp together.

So back to my original statment based on results none of the trades were special even though we gave up way less talent than we got back. In the Marbury & Crawford trade.

On our PFs. I don't see Isiah moveing Sweetney unless its for a good center and if thats the case than I have no problem with it. Penny/TT/JYD/KT will be shopped and packaged with draft picks.
[/quote]
I just checked; the winning percentage under Isiah is .478. Crawford is still at best an average starting SG and probably not even average. The other players are just role players who aren't going to turn a team around. Marbury basically turned the team from .320 to .480. More big trades will be needed to further push the team.
franco12
Posts: 33270
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 2/19/2004
Member: #599
USA
3/8/2005  5:57 PM
Wasn't it Layden that pushed both Houston and McDyess to come back from their injuries- or was it just intimated that they did?

IT has certainly been supportive of Allan shutting it down-
tomverve
Posts: 21407
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/4/2005
Member: #878
3/9/2005  1:42 AM
Originally posted by fishmike:

Welcome aboard Tom... you have really added a lot to the forum already.

Thanks fish. I like it here, been lurking for a while.
Posted by codeunknown:

Tom - your reasoning about the Taylor trade is flawed. Putting together a championship requires efficient management of assets and timing your acquisitions to maximize the window of opportunity. And Mo Taylor will be conspicuously absent when we win our next championship.

I agree with your general sentiment, codeunknown. Timing is important. Clearly for this team, the future is not now, but it's still, well, in the future. Isiah should be worrying about several years from now more than next season and the season after. But that doesn't preclude improving the team short term, which can be a useful stepping stone.

Mo T is still relatively young, and could last as a useful player for roughly another 5 seasons, be that as a Knick or as a trade chip in some form or another. It's no guarantee that his acquisition will be a significant help beyond the immediate (~2 yrs) present, but on the other hand, it very well could be-- his age, talents, and contract do not preclude that at all. So the future ramifications of getting Maurice are unclear, but there has been a definite short term improvement. That short term contribution may not be enough to turn into a valuable long term asset, but it certainly helps.
help treat disease with your spare computing power : http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/
sorry, but Isiah's been a disaster

©2001-2012 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy