With hind-sight I think we've invested in too many players with "Potential". I would rather see us focus on getting guys without the as much potential but who have proven to be more consistent performers - more KTs and less TTs. (For the Kt haters substitute another player you consider to be a consistent type player who doesn't have a ton of upside.)

You only need two or three really good players and solid roll players to win. I think Marbury is good enough to be one of these guys - though I doubt he could be your best player.

As we are currently situated even if we land Bogut and he turned out to be everything we hoped we'd still have holes to fill. I think we should concentrate on getting good players who can play a little defense unless the player has the potential to be elite.

Get rid of the TTs and Craws because even if they ever show some consistency on offense they're still going to be a liability on defense. IF we ever get lucky enough to land that Duncan type player it's going to be more important to surround him with guys who play consistent defense then guys who can occassionally carry the team offensively.

I'm not saying not to take chances on guys with "elite" potential. But
the Knicks have been taking "long shot odds" on players who even if they pay off aren't going to take us to a title without a superstar and if we had a superstar wouldn't be the best fit of complementary skills (good defense).

For the most part given a choice between less upside/less downside vs more upside/more downside I would take the former. The only exception being if the upside is "elite" upside. 9 times out of 10 I think the "potential" comes with more risk then it is worth.




[Edited by - oldfan on 04/05/2005 01:50:29]

When one has to work with the mess Layden left it's kinda hard to trade garbage for proven players.

Layden had overpaid but proven professionals.

Isiah has overpaid underachieving "posers".

what consistently bad?

sure you can find guys like KT and Rose who are consistently bad. So being an unimpressive player is good just as long as you are consistent? They are no better than TT, Taylor, crawford

Posted by Nalod:

Layden had overpaid but proven professionals.

Isiah has overpaid underachieving "posers".

Hmmm....I hate to agree but this post sums up how I feel about our current roster and roster of the previous regime. TT just ruins it for me.

Posted by Nalod:

Layden had overpaid but proven professionals.

Isiah has overpaid underachieving "posers".

Nalod, you bring up a good point but I look at it like this: In the Layden era, we had even more wins than now (yes, shockingly) and some sense of chemistry on the court probably. But we were overachieving with an amazingly undersized and inferior team. What Isiah did at the LEAST was bring us to an even playing field. Are we doing very now with more "potential" on our team and less chemistry? NO. But, like 2/3 of the NBA, we are now a "normal" NBA team in that at least we have NBA-talent now, instead of CBA talent. The next step is obviously to get them to perform, work together, and stop underachieving, but that is the problem that has stopped 29 teams every year in NBA history. Layden's teams that were fielded on the court, even if they won with houston's 50 point performances and eisley's oddly timed 3's, it was an embarassment to the city. Even if they severely raised what they should have been able to have done, they still would have never even gotten close to winning a title. And now, even with less wins this year, it is obvious that we have more talent and potential now, which I am glad for because there was honestly no hope to that team. This team this year could set the record for least wins in a season and I'd still take it in the long run over Layden's, because I can see what is happening now. We broke up something that was pretty good, took 2 steps back, and now have a greater potential to do something meaningful.

Posted by knicks1248:

I hate to say it but if you can't see why KT is better then TT I have nothing more to say to you.

Kt is a role player who knows his role well, it's unfortunate that he is severly limited, or else he would have been a all star the last 3 seasons. TT and Allan houston are just the reason for our demise. TT is a lazy fkr, JC is a dumb ass, and steph needs leadership instructions.

Steph just needs a half decent supporting cast. I agree that JC is dumb (but I haven't given up on him by any means) and TT is lazy.

Posted by gunsnewing:

Posted by OldFan:

Posted by gunsnewing:

what consistently bad?

sure you can find guys like KT and Rose who are consistently bad. So being an unimpressive player is good just as long as you are consistent? They are no better than TT, Taylor, crawford

Guns - I hate to say it but if you can't see why KT is better then TT I have nothing more to say to you.

not saying TT is anything special. its just that when KT has a big game we usually lose. when TT/sweetney has a great game we are competitive because we score inside. KT's numbers are the most ineffective thing I've ever seen. So was Nazr's numbers but at least he caused havok on the offensive glass.

We win when TT has a good game because you normally get nothing out of him so any a good game is a HUGE improvement. He has so many games where he provides nothing on offense and terrible defense - that yes the team is much better when he scores 25.


KT is consistent and his primary role is rebounding and defense. When KT has a "good Game" because scores a lot it is usually because TT and or Craw are having lousy games - he shouldn't need to be a primary scoring option. Also KT is pretty consistent so the difference between a good and a bad night isn't as great.

Your reasoning is inverse. We are losing because the inconsistent guys have so many bad games - not because KT has good games.

( You could have a superstar who puts up produces every night and if you surround him with 4 lousy players - then you're probably going to lose most nights. But if one or two of the lousy players has a good game you're probably going to win. Does that make the lousy players more important to the teams success?)

If TT and Craw scored consistently (and Played a little D) then KT's ability to consistently get double doubles or close to it would lead to a lot more wins.