# ESPN Insider-Kobe to Knicks? Could happen: Chris Sheridan



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

The Kobe Bryant situation has been quiet for almost two weeks now, ever since Bryant and owner Jerry Buss spoke on the telephone and Buss released a statement expressing his desire to keep Bryant in a Lakers uniform.

Since Buss is now vacationing in China and is not due back for another week or so, expect things to stay quiet for a while longer.

One thing to keep in mind as this thing bubbles beneath the surface: Nobody except Buss and Bryant knows exactly what was said on their phone call, but a day earlier Buss had responded to Bryant's formal trade request -- which was made to general manager Mitch Kupchak by agent Rob Pelinka -- by issuing a public statement essentially saying he wanted to hear those words come out of Kobe's mouth.

So we don't really know with 100 percent certainty whether in his heart of hearts Bryant does or doesn't want out, although I'm hearing the formal trade request remains on the table.

Now, if that trade request ever turns into a trade demand, there's a good case to be made that Kobe will end up with either the New York Knicks or Chicago Bulls.

Here's why, and how.

If Kobe really, truly wants out, the Lakers have almost no choice but to grant his wish.

Yes, they could play hardball with him and make him hold out when training camp arrives, but Kobe would then be holding the entire franchise hostage while he waited them out. He's the league's preeminent superstar, and he's not going to be pushed around.

He's also about as stubborn a person as the NBA has ever seen. Sometimes it serves him well, sometimes it doesn't. But he's stubborn. And if Jerry Buss plays poker against Kobe, he loses. And Jerry knows it.

"If I'm Mitch Kupchak, I'm looking right now to see where my leverage would be, and I'm not finding any," one NBA general manager told me.

A holdout would cost Bryant a lot of money and would be ruinous to all the image rehabilitation he's accomplished over the past year, but he'd make up for the financial loss many times over through his 15 percent trade kicker, and his image, as we've seen, is reparable no matter how bad things get.

So here's the next big thing: Kobe's no-trade clause.

Because Kobe can veto any trade, he can dictate where the Lakers must trade him by giving them a list of acceptable destinations. That is the power of the no-trade clause, and Kobe is the only guy in the league who has one.

Next you would look at where he might want to go -- and where the Lakers could accommodate him while still helping themselves.

I don't think Buss could live with trading Kobe to a Western Conference team and having him come into Staples to face the Lakers twice a year (and two times more to face the Clippers, plus, potentially, another set of visits in a playoff series vs. the Lakers), so I'm excising all West teams from my list of possibilities.

So we move to the East, and we look at where Kobe might want to play.

Philadelphia: One thought is Philly, because Kobe wants more than anything to be loved, and nowhere is he hated more than in his hometown (and nowhere would he be greeted as more of a hero). The problem is, it would take a minimum of Andre Miller and Andre Iguodala to get Kobe, and that would leave the Sixers with next to nothing other than Kobe. They've been down that path with Iverson, and anyway Kobe wants to win a championship.

Miami: Forget it. Not unless the Heat are giving up Dwyane Wade, which they aren't.

Atlanta: Too young. Years away from contending. Too far off the national radar.

Detroit: You never say never, especially after they looked old and done against Cleveland, but the market-size dropoff would be a problem for Kobe.

Boston: For Paul Pierce? Maybe, but they would still be far from a championship-level team, even with Bryant.

Chicago: This is the team I hear as one of the strongest possibilities, although its questionable whether John Paxson would be willing to gut the core of his team to get Bryant.

Paxson would probably have to start with Luol Deng and Ben Gordon, and perhaps Chris Duhon, and he would probably have to include a signed-and-traded Andres Nocioni or P.J. Brown to make the salaries work.

That would be an enormous amount for Paxson to surrender, especially given the way he has shaped the team's salary structure for the next 3-4 years.

New York: If Chicago is one of the logical places for Bryant to end up, that raises the question of which team could make a competing offer. That's where Knicks coach and president Isiah Thomas would come in.

I've known Isiah a long time, so trust me when I tell you he would go to the end of the earth and do whatever it takes to get a deal like this done. He wants his legacy to be something special in New York, and Kobe Bryant could help assure that. Furthermore, Bryant has previously expressed interest in lighting up Gotham.

As a trade partner, what the Knicks lack in quality, they have in quantity. In terms of volume, Isiah could overwhelm almost any other offer out there, starting with combo guard Jamal Crawford, rebounding machine David Lee, Knicks starting power forward Channing Frye, a pair of unprotected No. 1 picks (let's say 2008 and 2010) and sundry throw-ins, including Nate Robinson, Randolph Morris, Renaldo Balkman, et al.

Crawford is a guy who can score 20 points a night, and he'll go prolific for you at least twice a month. Lee is a double-double man, and the most popular player on the Knicks, an energy guy who will easily play in the league for 10 more years if he stays healthy. He's far from a bum, and the same goes for Frye, who could start for the Lakers for the next seven seasons.

No, there's no superstar in here, but it's a lot of lumber. And if you're rebuilding, you need a cache of young talent. Lee, Frye and Robinson are still on their rookie contracts. Crawford has a reasonable long-term deal ($7.9 next season, with a contract that ends after he makes $10.08 million in 2010-11). The Lakers would actually have cap space, lots of it, after Lamar Odom's contract ends in the summer of '09.

Nothing, however, will happen unless Kobe forces Buss' hand. That hasn't happened yet, and it still might not happen if the Lakers can make a major deal to put some new talent around Kobe and placate him. Certainly we've all heard about the possibility of Jermaine O'Neal and/or other players joining Bryant in L.A.

But if that doesn't happen, I wouldn't be surprised if Kobe pipes up publicly again, this time demanding -- not requesting -- a trade.

And if that happens, I think he'll end up in Chicago or New York.


http://www.sportsworldny.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11767&st=0&#entry80761


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

see if the knicks give up all that then they have the same problem as philly, curry and bryant would be a great duo, but not a championship duo, they need more pieces that they dont have. And if they dont find it quick, Bryant would just demand out of NY. So if you're still over the cap, traded the farm for bryant including first rounders, how in the world are you gonna bring in the other talent??


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

knickstorm said:


> see if the knicks give up all that then they have the same problem as philly, curry and bryant would be a great duo, but not a championship duo, they need more pieces that they dont have. And if they dont find it quick, Bryant would just demand out of NY. So if you're still over the cap, traded the farm for bryant including first rounders, how in the world are you gonna bring in the other talent??


We have a team that has solid role players and complementary players 15 deep. I doubt a shortage of players would be an issue for us but we'd still have the mid-level exception to add players if we need to. Considering the Heat became title contenders with Wade, Jones, Rasual Butler, Udonis Haslem and Shaq starting, I doubt the Knicks would need much more around Kobe and Curry.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

I wonder if Phil Jackson and Kobe Bryant are a package? If so, I'd be wondering if Phil Jackson would be willing to come to New York if Kobe leaves. I'd love to see the Knicks attempt to run the triangle with Kobe Bryant and Eddy Curry. Phil has stated in the past that he is not one for New York but he also stated in the past he could not coach Kobe Bryant. We all know how that worked out.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Yeah.....it worked out just great*

They had all kinds of problems this year. It seems Jacko has had his fill with Kobe. There were plenty of articles about the unpleasant undercurrent between the two.


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> We have a team that has solid role players and complementary players 15 deep. I doubt a shortage of players would be an issue for us but we'd still have the mid-level exception to add players if we need to. Considering the Heat became title contenders with Wade, Jones, Rasual Butler, Udonis Haslem and Shaq starting, I doubt the Knicks would need much more around Kobe and Curry.


oihh yea it would, take a look at the rosters and salaries, if they want kobe, a package of frye, crawford, morris, balkman, lee, robinson wouldnt even cut it cause kobe makes too much money. You'd have to add another player, who makes 750k or so to get the trade done. You'd have to throw in collins salary to make it work. So now you have a team of kobe, curry, , francis, jerome james, jared jeffries, marbury, and Qrich, Malik ROse. Shortage still not an issue? You're not signing anyone worthwhile with the mid level exception, and you can thank dick bavetta for miami's title. PLus Lakers would have to release half their roster to even find space, just too many obstacles to overcome


----------



## CocaineisaHelluvaDrug (Aug 24, 2006)

espn insider ??

ill ignore that completly then

only way kobe goes is if portland offered the no 1,zach randolph and filler


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

www.starbury.com said:


> espn insider ??
> 
> ill ignore that completly then
> 
> only way kobe goes is if portland offered the no 1,zach randolph and filler


...And you have some inside track better than espn insider? Did league officials inform you of that?


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

knickstorm said:


> oihh yea it would, take a look at the rosters and salaries, if they want kobe, a package of frye, crawford, morris, balkman, lee, robinson wouldnt even cut it cause kobe makes too much money. You'd have to add another player, who makes 750k or so to get the trade done. You'd have to throw in collins salary to make it work. So now you have a team of kobe, curry, , francis, jerome james, jared jeffries, marbury, and Qrich, Malik ROse. Shortage still not an issue? You're not signing anyone worthwhile with the mid level exception, and you can thank dick bavetta for miami's title. PLus Lakers would have to release half their roster to even find space, just too many obstacles to overcome


Our payroll will total more than $80 million next year and you have an issue finding contracts to package in the deal? Something is wrong with that insinuation. If you read the article carefully, you'd see that Kobe dictates where he goes and not necessarily the Lakers because of his no trade clause. That means the Lakers are almost forced to oblige Kobe and accept a ridiculously package of young players but good none the less. Even the team you just mentioned is still better than the role players the Heat had around Shaq and Wade so I'd be willing to settle for that. *Kobe helped get the Lakers to the playoffs with a team that consists of second round caliber talent that might not have a spot in the NBA had they not been fortunate enough to play with him.* Something tells me he'd be able to do something with our players.

P.S., it's kind of ridiculous to think that somehow a referee managed to influence every single game for the Heat in the playoffs last years. Call me crazy but I think talent and skill might have had something to do with them winning the title last year; I despise the Heat for the record.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Yeah.....it worked out just great*



alphaorange said:


> They had all kinds of problems this year. It seems Jacko has had his fill with Kobe. There were plenty of articles about the unpleasant undercurrent between the two.


The Lakers may have had problems but they still managed to make the playoffs with Kobe, Lamar Odom and a relatively unknown cast surrounding them. *I'm not sure whether Jackson had issues with Kobe (if you have any info about it please tell me)* but if he does, they managed to mask it pretty well and perform very well given their circumstances.


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

*yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn*

rumors are just that..........

hardly any rumors ever come true when it comes to NY.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Timeout ALPHA*, Kobe went on record saying that a chat with Phil Jackson is what backed him down from his trade request in late May. If he had such serious issues with Jackson, it would seem peculiar that Jackson of all people would be the person he'd listen to in that situation.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

how can you trade kobe and not get at least 1 all-star or even potential all-star caliber player in return?


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Well since he still wants to be traded....*

I guess the talk really worked. BTW, respecting a man doesn't mean you want to work with him.

I'll also take issue with gutting the team to get him. The team you have left is nothing more than a longshot to get to the Eastern Finals. There would be NO HOPE of adding anyone really substancial...no draft picks..and it would be 2002 all over again. No thanks. I'd rather trade Curry and build around Kobe...who has no holes in his game. Now THAT would be an interesting starting point.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

If I said there was a Twinkie available for trade some media hack would pipe in that the Knicks were getting it.


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> Our payroll will total more than $80 million next year and you have an issue finding contracts to package in the deal? Something is wrong with that insinuation. If you read the article carefully, you'd see that Kobe dictates where he goes and not necessarily the Lakers because of his no trade clause. That means the Lakers are almost forced to oblige Kobe and accept a ridiculously package of young players but good none the less. Even the team you just mentioned is still better than the role players the Heat had around Shaq and Wade so I'd be willing to settle for that. *Kobe helped get the Lakers to the playoffs with a team that consists of second round caliber talent that might not have a spot in the NBA had they not been fortunate enough to play with him.* Something tells me he'd be able to do something with our players.
> 
> P.S., it's kind of ridiculous to think that somehow a referee managed to influence every single game for the Heat in the playoffs last years. Call me crazy but I think talent and skill might have had something to do with them winning the title last year; I despise the Heat for the record.



yea that 80 mill is filled with ridiculous contracts that the Lakers wouldnt even take back, you gotta find reasonable contracts ie the rookie salaries of frye, robinson, balkman etc. If you watch the heat finals you'd see all touchy fouls wade got, it was ridiculous. The Lakers even if KObe demands out wouldnt ruin their franchise to oblige kobe. You out of your mind. They'd get better offers from the bulls, probably even the warriors if they wanted him too. The team i mentioned is not better than that mimai team. Marbury is a cancer to the squad even though he's more talented than JWill. WIlliams stepped up in game 6 vs the mavs, marbury has hit 1 big playoff shot his entire life. Shaq even at his advanced age would outrebound curry even if he played 20 minutes of a game. And the heat had role players who played their roles. THe knicks have a buncha semi talented misfits who don't know their place on the team. This deal would never work, let it go or just dream on.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Forget the Bulls*

They would have to gut their team to get him, and Paxson is no fool. If Kobe decides he is going to be traded, he will be traded. The next issue is where will he allow himself to be traded. The following issue is what will each team give. It does no good to have Kobe's name on the roster if it doesn't put you in a position to contend for a title. Face it, if he goes, they have to rebuild. If they take a couple of contracts that expire in the next couple of years plus SOME, NOT MOST, OF the Knicks kiddie corp, they can rebuild in a couple of years given the lure of Tinseltown for free agents. I've said time and again....it isn't who you get back. Its what move helps you get back to the top. 'Couple of 1st rounders, couple of mature contracts, couple of decent players, with a big FA in 2 years and VOILA!...Lakers are back. They already have a young center...the hardest piece.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Well since he still wants to be traded....*



alphaorange said:


> I guess the talk really worked. BTW, respecting a man doesn't mean you want to work with him.
> 
> I'll also take issue with gutting the team to get him. The team you have left is nothing more than a longshot to get to the Eastern Finals. There would be NO HOPE of adding anyone really substancial...no draft picks..and it would be 2002 all over again. No thanks. I'd rather trade Curry and build around Kobe...who has no holes in his game. Now THAT would be an interesting starting point.


Well obviously Kobe isn't up and arms about playing for Phil Jackson especially considering he welcomed him back a second time after a "tumultous" relationship with him during Jackson's first stint with the Lakers.

Feel however you will about the Knicks but trading and have Kobe is certainly better than not having him. I believe we all can at least agree about that.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

knickstorm said:


> yea that 80 mill is filled with ridiculous contracts that the Lakers wouldnt even take back, you gotta find reasonable contracts ie the rookie salaries of frye, robinson, balkman etc. If you watch the heat finals you'd see all touchy fouls wade got, it was ridiculous. The Lakers even if KObe demands out wouldnt ruin their franchise to oblige kobe. You out of your mind. They'd get better offers from the bulls, probably even the warriors if they wanted him too. The team i mentioned is not better than that mimai team. Marbury is a cancer to the squad even though he's more talented than JWill. WIlliams stepped up in game 6 vs the mavs, marbury has hit 1 big playoff shot his entire life. Shaq even at his advanced age would outrebound curry even if he played 20 minutes of a game. And the heat had role players who played their roles. THe knicks have a buncha semi talented misfits who don't know their place on the team. This deal would never work, let it go or just dream on.


Ridiculous contracts? The only 8 digit per year contracts we have on this team belong to Marbury and Francis who see both their contracts end the season after this upcoming one. What about this is ridiculous if you would consider your renting two not so long removed all-stars for 2 seasons? *Your simply overexaggerating your stance especially when the Lakers took on Brian Grant's contract in return for Shaq. If you didn't know, Grant's contract is still on the Lakers even though he did not play more than one year with them.* Anyway, to each his own. All the article and I am saying is that it's a possibility.


I just have to laugh at all this "cancer" stuff. It's funny that former "cancer's" like Jason Williams (who you seem to adore), James Posey and Antawn Walker all have rings right now. Former cancer's like Jason Terry, Erick Dampier and even Drew Gooden have also managed to come quite close to winning a title the past two years. Why should things be any different from Marbury whose drastically changed his game to accomodate his teammates?


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> Ridiculous contracts? The only 8 digit per year contracts we have on this team belong to Marbury and Francis who see both their contracts end the season after this upcoming one. What about this is ridiculous if you would consider your renting two not so long removed all-stars for 2 seasons? *Your simply overexaggerating your stance especially when the Lakers took on Brian Grant's contract in return for Shaq. If you didn't know, Grant's contract is still on the Lakers even though he did not play more than one year with them.* Anyway, to each his own. All the article and I am saying is that it's a possibility.
> 
> 
> I just have to laugh at all this "cancer" stuff. It's funny that former "cancer's" like Jason Williams (who you seem to adore), James Posey and Antawn Walker all have rings right now. Former cancer's like Jason Terry, Erick Dampier and even Drew Gooden have also managed to come quite close to winning a title the past two years. Why should things be any different from Marbury whose drastically changed his game to accomodate his teammates?


You're proving my point, Terry, JWill, Walker have all won, proving they're not cancers. How big of a cancer could Terry have been in ATL?? what have they done since "the cancer" left??? Absolutley nothing. Where have the celtics gone since "the cancer" antione walker left?? Nowhere. JWill Posey, Terry, Dampier, Gooden aren't making 20 mill a year. You cant hold them to the same standard that you would a max player. Lets be real too, Gooden only came "close" to a title because of LBJ, Terry wouldn't have come close without Nowitzki dumping 30+ ppg that playoffs and Erika Dampier i'm not even going to get into.

Now look at Marbury's past. He couldnt get along with KG. SO he takes off to NJ. THe nets are rather unimpressive. The year before he arrives they at least sniffed the playoffs. He gets to jersey and they cant even scrap together a season where they win .400 of their games. They average 24 wins a season while he's there. He leaves, and what do you know, the NEts go to back to back finals. 

He then goes to PHoenix. They were 51-31 with JKidd before he got there. Marbury takes over and they promptly finish 36-46 and missed the playoffs. He gets Amare stoudemire and they sneak into the playoffs the next year, he makes 1 lucky shot that gives phoenix a miracle game 1 win over the spurs, and they get bounced. BEfore the end of his 3rd year PHoenix realizes its a huge mistake and ship him off to NY.

Then Phoenix takes off, and now they are an elite team in the West, and are championship contenders that gave a spurs a run for their money. Hey if Horry doesnt check Nash into the boards who knows.

SO marbury comes to NY and hey, promptly swept by the NEts and havent sniffed the playoffs since. Everywhere this guy goes he loses. Every team he leaves improves drastically. I like the guy, i like how i can go to steve and barrys and pick up a starbury for 15, and cheap windbreakers, sweatpants etc, but he's just not a winner.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

knickstorm said:


> You're proving my point, Terry, JWill, Walker have all won, proving they're not cancers. How big of a cancer could Terry have been in ATL?? what have they done since "the cancer" left??? Absolutley nothing. Where have the celtics gone since "the cancer" antione walker left?? Nowhere. JWill Posey, Terry, Dampier, Gooden aren't making 20 mill a year. You cant hold them to the same standard that you would a max player. Lets be real too, Gooden only came "close" to a title because of LBJ, Terry wouldn't have come close without Nowitzki dumping 30+ ppg that playoffs and Erika Dampier i'm not even going to get into.
> 
> Now look at Marbury's past. He couldnt get along with KG. SO he takes off to NJ. THe nets are rather unimpressive. The year before he arrives they at least sniffed the playoffs. He gets to jersey and they cant even scrap together a season where they win .400 of their games. They average 24 wins a season while he's there. He leaves, and what do you know, the NEts go to back to back finals.
> 
> ...


I think you have a short memory because alot of the time when Dirk was a no show or the Mavericks were in a drought, Terry or Dampier proved the offensive or defensive burst to get them over the hump. Dirk may be part of the reason they got their but he certainly was not the reason. The same can be said about all the other aforementioned players and the same could be said about Marbury. I'm tired of the whole, Marbury's teams got better after he left nonsense. If you look at those teams, he either brought in a better fit to the squad or provided them with the assets to seriously upgrade their roster. The Suns with the cap space to sign Steve Nash and Quentin Richardson. The Nets who recieved a better fit at point, along with Richard Jefferson, Jason Collins, Todd MacCulloch and a host of healthy players that were not so healthy with Marbury. Bottom line, Marbury has proven to be a player but a player can only do but so much. With Kobe, he should be a pretty effective player.


----------



## koberules24 (Nov 12, 2006)

What are you going to give us? *Are you going to wow us with a package that includes nothing but overpaid and overrated headcases?* *Do you even have a player on your roster who isn't?* Oh no I must be wrong b/c David Lee and Steve Francis sound like great trading chips.


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> I think you have a short memory because alot of the time when Dirk was a no show or the Mavericks were in a drought, Terry or Dampier proved the offensive or defensive burst to get them over the hump. Dirk may be part of the reason they got their but he certainly was not the reason. The same can be said about all the other aforementioned players and the same could be said about Marbury. I'm tired of the whole, Marbury's teams got better after he left nonsense. If you look at those teams, he either brought in a better fit to the squad or provided them with the assets to seriously upgrade their roster. The Suns with the cap space to sign Steve Nash and Quentin Richardson. The Nets who recieved a better fit at point, along with Richard Jefferson, Jason Collins, Todd MacCulloch and a host of healthy players that were not so healthy with Marbury. Bottom line, Marbury has proven to be a player but a player can only do but so much. With Kobe, he should be a pretty effective player.


nope, you got short term memory. I already explained why Terry, Dampier etc cant be held to the same standard as Marbury. Dirk was a no show?!??! take a look at the stats man

Round 1 vs Memphis
Game 1: 31 pts 11 Reb 3 assists
Game 2: 31 pts 4 Reb
Game 3: 36 pts 9 reb 5 assists
Game 4: 27 pts 7 reb 3 assists

**which game was the no show??**

Round 2 vs Spurs 
Game 1: 20 pts 14 Reb
Game 2: 21 pts 9 reb (would've been more, but Spurs got blown out)
Game 3: 27 pts 15 REb
Game 4: 28 pts 9 Reb
Game 5: 31 pts 10 Reb
Game 6: 26 pts 21 reb 5 Assists
Game 7: 37 pts 15 boards in a elimination game @ SA

**when was he a now show??**

Conf FInals vs Phoenix
Game 1: 25 pts 19 Boards
Game 2: 30 pts 14 Reb 4 assists
Game 3: 28 pts 17 Reb 4 assits
Game 4: 11 pts 7 boards ( first bad game of the playoffs)
Game 5: 50 POINTS!! 12 boards
Game 6: 24 pts 10 boards 3 assists 3 blocks

*when was he a no show?? ohh yea they lost that game, so no one stepped up like you said when he was**

Finals Vs Heat
Game 1: 16 pts 10 boards
Game 2: 26 pts 16 boards
GAme 3: 30 pts 7 Reb
Game 4: 16 pts 9 Boards
Game 5: 20 pts 8 boards
GAme 6: 29 pts 15 boards

Thats like saying LBJ is part of the reason the Cavs were in the finals. I dont care if Marbury freed up money or provided assets, thats what a trade is supposed to do. YOu get assets and you give some. Once again you're proving my point, everywhere he left, they've gotten better. HELLO THATS THE POINT OF TRADING!! YOu dont trade to get worse do you?? So you're defense cant be "ohh thats not marbury fault they got better, they just got better value back after they got rid of him" well thank you captain obvious.

Bottom line is marbury couldn't "fit" with those teams when whoever else came could. He's a player that has game but whose game doesnt really fit with any winning formula. He's a ME player....he doesnt make anyone better..... What gives you the idea he'd fit in NY?? They gave him Curry, Crawford, Lee, Frye, what else do you want?? They gave him Larry Brown who helped turn Chauncey Billups into a championship PG. He ruined that too......now Kobe??? If you cant co-exits with KG what makes you think he can co-exist with another star on the team. 

For Stephon it's always been about him. Anointing himself the best PG of the league was the epitome of that. Stop coming up with excuses, facts dont lie. Wherever he goes, the team doesnt win. Wherever he leaves, the team starts winning. Come up with all the excuses you want...doesnt change facts.


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

This Kobe Bryant Trade situation with the Knicks 2006-7 season says: 

*Mr. David Lee 
The Knicks 2006-7 MVP of that season*, was never given the RESPECT inwhich he earned game after game by Head Coach Isiah Thomas. 

I am a Blackman and I seen color-prejudice on Isiah Thomas part in the use of David Lee for two seasons as his Coach and his G.M. (It hurts me to say this but it is true in the back of alot of our minds.). 

David Lee is the best PF the Knicks have on their roster (that Lakers need) and this was seen and known before the 2006-7 regular season started. So David Lee should've automatically been put in the Knicks starting lineup to bring more value to his early NBA career at PF, or even at the SF position. WHY? 

*David Lee talents on court made both Curry and Frye talents outstanding (imagine Bynum, Kwame, and Odom)!* 
1) PF-David Lee and C-Curry gives all Knicks oposition a hard way to defend them from rebounding, and scoring in the paint. 
2) SF-David Lee and PF-Frye gives all Knicks oposition problems in the running game on both sides of the court. 

*The Knicks best Staring lineup in the 2006-7 season that outplayed their oposition in the first quarter and the third quarter were:* 
C-Curry
PF-Frye
SF-Lee
SG-Crawford
PG-Marbury
6thMan-Balkman 
*The above were the SIX-Players to build a "JELLIN" chemistry with (in the 2006-7 season) and build the Knick team around.*
This was the Knicks starting Lineup right after the Denver-Brawl, they WON 4 Games out of 5 games after the Denver-Brawl this past season. 

Adding Jefferies into the Starting lineup for 30 MPG, and Francis off the bench for a three-guard offense consistently game after game to stop the main 6 player rotation that just WON 4 games out of 5 games put the Knicks back on track to raising more LOSES in the season WIN/LOST column. 

Now the BIG Trade Player of the offseason Kobe Bryant wants to come to the New York Knicks, this will cost the Knicks two scoring players (Francis & Crawford whom will do everything to please Coach Jax), plus Coach Phil Jackson favorite player of this trade will be Mr. David Lee. 
*If there is No David Lee in this trade, there will be No Kobe trade to the Knicks...*


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

*Re: Well since he still wants to be traded....*



TwinkieFoot said:


> Well obviously Kobe isn't up and arms about playing for Phil Jackson especially considering he welcomed him back a second time after a "tumultous" relationship with him during Jackson's first stint with the Lakers.
> 
> Feel however you will about the Knicks but trading and have Kobe is certainly better than not having him. I believe we all can at least agree about that.



Kobe may be the best player in the league scoring wise however, Isiah Thomas does not have the Coaching skillz or earned credit to make Kobe a FINALS player that will compliment his four teammates. 
Isiah Thomas showed POOR coaching and G.M. Skillz already on "ONE on ONE" Players Marbury, Penny, Crawford, Francis, and Curry. 
Kobe is way to much for Isiah Thomas (Francis should have been a BIG Lesson). Plus Head Coach Phil Jackson will want at least two of the Knicks best TEAM-Players in the Kobe trade, or he may take two of the Knicks "One on One" players (Francis & Crawford) with PF/SF-David Lee included.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Kobe in New York would be huge for the NBA.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

The deal listed in the original article has no chance of happening. Crawford and the young players don't come close to Kobe's salary. And the Lakers are not going to want to take Crawford's contract plust he contract of a guy like Richardson, or Jeffries when they aren't star players.

If the Knicks were extremely lucky, the Lakers would take Francis and some of the young guys, but I think the Lakers would almost insist on Marbury instead.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> The deal listed in the original article has no chance of happening. Crawford and the young players don't come close to Kobe's salary. And the Lakers are not going to want to take Crawford's contract plust he contract of a guy like Richardson, or Jeffries when they aren't star players.
> 
> If the Knicks were extremely lucky, the Lakers would take Francis and some of the young guys, but I think the Lakers would almost insist on Marbury instead.


The triangle system is based on PG's who are big guards. Crawford is that and comes at an economically friendly price considering the amount of minutes he plays and the fact he puts up about 17ppg, 4apg and 4rpg. He'd be an important building block if the Lakers look to continue building that kind of offense, especially considering he played in the triangle for several years. As for Richardson, they have to add him in the deal because they'd need a 2-guard. He may have issues about his back but that is the only thing that may be unattractive about him. He has range, he plays defense, he can post up, he rebounds extremely well, and he is cut as a leader. He's had back surgery so maybe those issues have been corrected and if they are, you'd have an adequate replacement for Kobe until you put the final pieces in place for another playoff team.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Well since he still wants to be traded....*



Kiyaman said:


> Kobe may be the best player in the league scoring wise however, Isiah Thomas does not have the Coaching skillz or earned credit to make Kobe a FINALS player that will compliment his four teammates.
> Isiah Thomas showed POOR coaching and G.M. Skillz already on "ONE on ONE" Players Marbury, Penny, Crawford, Francis, and Curry.
> Kobe is way to much for Isiah Thomas (Francis should have been a BIG Lesson). Plus Head Coach Phil Jackson will want at least two of the Knicks best TEAM-Players in the Kobe trade, or he may take two of the Knicks "One on One" players (Francis & Crawford) with PF/SF-David Lee included.


Isiah has a freelancing offense that has opportunties for individuals the freedom to do whatever they can do. It is why guys like Channing Frye, who excel in structured offenses, had issues feeling comfortable in such a system. Given Kobe's ridiculously great abilities, I doubt he'd have any issues of taking advantage of tat freedom. I don't know if Isiah can take us to the Finals but the Lakers made the playoffs with 2nd round and CBA caliber players around Kobe so I doubt we'd have to much trouble running through the East.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

knickstorm said:


> nope, you got short term memory. I already explained why Terry, Dampier etc cant be held to the same standard as Marbury. Dirk was a no show?!??! take a look at the stats man
> 
> Round 1 vs Memphis
> Game 1: 31 pts 11 Reb 3 assists
> ...


We been down this path already so I don't understand why we need to rehash it considering you reached a dead end last time. You put up those "great" stats during Dirk's playoff run last year yet failed to remember that anyone can hit a certain number of points if they get enough shots. If I recall correctly, the issue was not him putting up alot a points but the ridiculous amount of shots he needed in order to do so during crucial parts of playoffs. Minutes also do an excellent job of helping you jack up your stats too.

Now onto the whole Marbury issue, if Marbury brought back more assets in each of his trades, doesn't that say something about his abilities as a player? Unfortunately, the situations he went into just did not have the quality talent around him to really win as an aftermath.

LOL, I also find it halarious how you feel that just having Marbury off any team made them automatically better. Who replaced him? Two of the best PG's of our time that are also recognized as two of the best passers the league has ever seen. This league is all about fits and unfortunately, Marbury's skill set calls for a different kind of team to be constructed around him. Because of his great ability to get to the rim and finish, Marbury would have been better suited with guys who can shoot the ball and work the drive and kick game with him. Unfortunately, Marbury has never played with great shooters on his team and instead been placed next to guys who need the ball in their hand to find the rhythm to hit their shots. Either that, or the guys were simply to young to understand how to win in this league like with the Suns and presently with the Knicks. As a word of advice, Marbury meshed just fine with KG and in Flip Saunders system which resulted in them making the playoffs for the first time in their history. Immaturity lead to him leaving their on his own part but we've all had instances of that especially at 20years old. As far as facts, you really don't have any, just opinion like mine but mine is based on more reasoning than taking things for their surface value.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

TwinkieFoot said:


> The triangle system is based on PG's who are big guards. Crawford is that and comes at an economically friendly price considering the amount of minutes he plays and the fact he puts up about 17ppg, 4apg and 4rpg. He'd be an important building block if the Lakers look to continue building that kind of offense, especially considering he played in the triangle for several years. As for Richardson, they have to add him in the deal because they'd need a 2-guard. He may have issues about his back but that is the only thing that may be unattractive about him. He has range, he plays defense, he can post up, he rebounds extremely well, and he is cut as a leader. He's had back surgery so maybe those issues have been corrected and if they are, you'd have an adequate replacement for Kobe until you put the final pieces in place for another playoff team.


First, if Kobe goes there is no guarantee that Phil stays. He knows he won't win with what they get back. Therefore the tri issue is moot. And as a side note - Fisher, Lue, Hunter, Penberthy, Pargo, and Farmar have all been Laker point guards under Phil and the tri. And all are short. So really Crawfords height doesn't matter anyways.

But the real issue is that Crawford and Richardson aren't good enough to help the Lakers reach the playoffs and both are overpaid (Crawford goes till '10-11 when he will make 10 million) Buss isn't going to pay big bucks unless it is a star player like Marbury or helps them win.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> First, if Kobe goes there is no guarantee that Phil stays. He knows he won't win with what they get back. Therefore the tri issue is moot. And as a side note - Fisher, Lue, Hunter, Penberthy, Pargo, and Farmar have all been Laker point guards under Phil and the tri. And all are short. So really Crawfords height doesn't matter anyways.
> 
> But the real issue is that Crawford and Richardson aren't good enough to help the Lakers reach the playoffs and both are overpaid (Crawford goes till '10-11 when he will make 10 million) Buss isn't going to pay big bucks unless it is a star player like Marbury or helps them win.


And who was the best triangle PG ever? 6-6 Ron Harper that was a gunner before he hurt his knee. The triangle offense is ideal for scoring PG's because it helps alleviate the responsibility of them having to find teammates and give them looks. By moving your body and moving the ball, you find yourself with pretty good looks at the basket through teamwork. Prototypical PG's that pass the ball might not be at their best in this system because your main strength, running an offense, is really hindered through the system. This means over aspects of the game play a more crucial role like rebounding the ball, shooting the ball with range, and defense. This is why guys like Derek Fisher fit in perfectly and why scorers do as well.

For the record, Pargo is 6-3, Hunter is 6-2 but with the arm length of a guy 6-6, and Lue and Farmer have not been confided in during their tenures as Lakers for a reason.

P.S., trading for Richardson has it's benefits because by trading for multiple contracts allow you to move the players you recieve easier than with one large contract. It is why the Kings moved Webber for 3 irrelevant role players when they did.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Like I said, if Kobe goes I think Phil is gone as well, which would render all this moot. But I will adress it anyways.



TwinkieFoot said:


> And who was the best triangle PG ever? 6-6 Ron Harper


I don't think Harper was the best tri point guard ever. Put him on a tri team with no Jordan and Pippen and he is nothing more than an average player.



> that was a gunner before he hurt his knee.


Exactly. He was a gunner before he came to the Bulls. He wasn't one while on the team. Crawford is still a gunner. And always will be.



> The triangle offense is ideal for scoring PG's because it helps alleviate the responsibility of them having to find teammates and give them looks. Bymoving your body and moving the ball, you find yourself with pretty good looks at the basket through teamwork.


Harper wasn't a scoring point guard with the Bulls, yet you said he is the best ever. 



> Prototypical PG's that pass the ball might not be at their best in this system because your main strength, running an offense, is really hindered through the system.


Actually it would improve the offensive . Notice how Phil values high IQ players? Players that move the ball well like Luke Walton? That is the same thing that a convential point would do (and do even better) but historically Phil has had his wing players initiate the offense (Pippen, Kobe, Odom, Walton) and the "point guards" have been spot up shooters like Fisher, Armstrong, Paxson, etc.. Crawford is not a spot up shooter.




> For the record, Pargo is 6-3, Hunter is 6-2 but with the arm length of a guy 6-6, and Lue and Farmer have not been confided in during their tenures as Lakers for a reason.


Pargo is 6'1 according to NBA.com, and both he and Hunter look shorter than that anyways. Phil asked Lue to come back when he was a free agent but he declined, and Phil started Farmar (a rookie) over a much bigger player in Smush Parker who actually fits the tri mold much better than Farmar (traditional point guard) and yet Farmar ran the offense better...



> P.S., trading for Richardson has it's benefits because by trading for multiple contracts allow you to move the players you recieve easier than with one large contract. It is why the Kings moved Webber for 3 irrelevant role players when they did.


How did that work out for the Kings?


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

> Wilt_The_Stilt said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said, if Kobe goes I think Phil is gone as well, which would render all this moot. But I will adress it anyways.
> ...


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

> That may be true but remember that the Lakers still ran the triangle even after Phil left with Rudy Tomjanovic. Whose to say they won't make their new coach do the same?


The Lakers ran the tri after Rudy quit mid-season and Frank Hamblen (Phil's old assistant)took over.



> That's your opinion. He was one of the few with the Bulls that managed to hold down that point position consistently and also help pioneer the first of the Lakers 3 consecutive championships. Now, you decide.


Harper for most of his tenure with the Bulls did not even play half the game (minute-wise) How can he be considered the best ever when that is the case? He only held down the fort for ~20 minutes a game. And the Lakers would have won their 1st ring without Harper, like they did the ones after he left.



> Harper was not necessarily the same player he was pre-surgery but that does not mean he became a guy capable of really running an offense. All the injury did was tone down his game and made him into a role player. The transformation your talking about just does not happen in basketball often and could be something like Jenna Jameson becoming Mother Theresa reincarnated


I never said Harper was a pure point guard. But he wasn't a "gunner" while he was with the Bulls and he played defense, which Crawford doesn't. And that is what this is about...how Crawford (who is a no defense gunner) would fit in with the tri. 



> He wasn't a prototypical PG either


Never said he was, but again he (as a Bull) was not like Crawford either.



> I don't think Odom or Walton could run a team full-time.


They split it with Kobe. Replace Kobe with Crawford and there is no one to run the team as Crawford is not capable of that. 



> As for Farmer, he started a couple games but Parker started a majority of the season and the playoffs even though Farmer was clearly the better player.


Farmar started in the playoffs.



> Pretty good considering they got rid of Brian Skinner, just got rid of Corliss Williamson as of July 1st and kept a serviceable role player in Kenny Thomas


In the context of your original point (which was that several smaller contracts are easier to move than 1 big contract)they didn't do so well. The only player they traded was Skinner. They still have Thomas for 3 more overpriced years. The Lakers would be better off with the better players in Francis or Marbury and their contracts (which are shorter than Craw and QRich's)


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> We been down this path already so I don't understand why we need to rehash it considering you reached a dead end last time. You put up those "great" stats during Dirk's playoff run last year yet failed to remember that anyone can hit a certain number of points if they get enough shots. If I recall correctly, the issue was not him putting up alot a points but the ridiculous amount of shots he needed in order to do so during crucial parts of playoffs. Minutes also do an excellent job of helping you jack up your stats too.
> 
> Now onto the whole Marbury issue, if Marbury brought back more assets in each of his trades, doesn't that say something about his abilities as a player? Unfortunately, the situations he went into just did not have the quality talent around him to really win as an aftermath.
> 
> LOL, I also find it halarious how you feel that just having Marbury off any team made them automatically better. Who replaced him? Two of the best PG's of our time that are also recognized as two of the best passers the league has ever seen. This league is all about fits and unfortunately, Marbury's skill set calls for a different kind of team to be constructed around him. Because of his great ability to get to the rim and finish, Marbury would have been better suited with guys who can shoot the ball and work the drive and kick game with him. Unfortunately, Marbury has never played with great shooters on his team and instead been placed next to guys who need the ball in their hand to find the rhythm to hit their shots. Either that, or the guys were simply to young to understand how to win in this league like with the Suns and presently with the Knicks. As a word of advice, Marbury meshed just fine with KG and in Flip Saunders system which resulted in them making the playoffs for the first time in their history. Immaturity lead to him leaving their on his own part but we've all had instances of that especially at 20years old. As far as facts, you really don't have any, just opinion like mine but mine is based on more reasoning than taking things for their surface value.


YOu hit the dead end. He hit 47% of his shots. It doesnt matter how many he takes cause he still shot a good percentage. Anyone can jack shots, not everyone can hit a good percentage of them. The fact is he took an average of 18 shots a game........how is that too many or "jacking up shots" for the superstar of the team??? its less than wade, bryant, fill in whatever name you want..........YOu said he was a no show, and yet you cant point out the game where he was a no show. Ridiculous amount of shots during crucial times?? well you want Erik Dampier shooting those crucial shots??? YOu must've forgot the 3 pt play vs the Spurs in game 7. Once agian you cant point out the no show game and its laughable you credit erika dampier for playing a substatial role in the mavs run.

HOw many times does it have to happen to marbury before you get it through your skull he doesnt fit anywhere. Ok so every team he leaves gets better, you dont buy it, explain why every team he lands on gets worse?? He's a hard fit?? yea thats why he's not someone you want on your team. No team is built around a PG. NAme me one elite team in the last decade or 2 to be built around a point guard not named Magic.....and even magic had Kareem. YOu dont build around a PG because you just cant win that way.

Marbury was put in situations where other people need the ball in their hand to find the rhythm to hit their shots??? Like who?? on this team the only player that qualifies is jamal crawford. Don't lie, he had shooters in the past. Kittles could shoot, van horn was putting in 20+ a game back in jersey. You put him on a team full of Jason Kapono's and peja stojakovic's and he'd still lead them to nowhere. ....STop giving him excuses. He doesnt make anyone better, so if you want him to be a winner, you have to surround him with other elite players and that cant happen in NY with the salary cap and all. 

THe knicks are just young and dont know how to win?!!? no they're just not good enough to win consistently. Yea its funny aint it....every "young team that doesnt know how to win" that you say marbury is stuck on, the first year that he leaves they all of a sudden learn how to win. What a huge coincidence. 

Yea his ability to bring back assets means he's got game, but we're not disputing that. We're debating whether or not he can be part of a winning team and its obvious he cant be the centerpiece of one. YOu talk about a drive and kick game but that's not marbury's game. He's a get out of my way and let me shoot player. Look at QRIch, the drive and kick game worked great in phoenix, he comes here and is nowhere near the same player he was on the suns.

Is it also immaturity that led to him stupidly anointing himself the best PG in the NBA?? You're the one without facts, just ignorant statement after ignorant statement. Marbury hasnt won a thing in his life outside the PSAL title with Lincoln and his teammates cant stand him. I aint going to name names, but i spent time around the lockeroom working in the sports department of a local tv station and Marbury is the least liked teammate in NY that i've ever seen. Right up there, maybe even worse than AROD....at least in baseball you dont really have to talk to your teammate, plus you're not sharing a ball or anything.......Matter fact if you got a copy of the Knicks media guide this year, turn to the media page titled "the third estate", i'm actually in the picutre standing to isiah's side.

This team is going nowhere with marbury and will continue to go nowhere with marbury. It's all about me, it's the Stephon show. This is the same selfish guy who hurt the team just to show larry brown up by not taking any shots 2 seasons ago. Yea that was real mature.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Hey Storm*

I may not agree with EVERYTHING you said but.......



..................nicely done................




PS....Agree with most, though


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

> QUOTE=knickstorm]YOu hit the dead end. He hit 47% of his shots. It doesnt matter how many he takes cause he still shot a good percentage. Anyone can jack shots, not everyone can hit a good percentage of them. The fact is he took an average of 18 shots a game........how is that too many or "jacking up shots" for the superstar of the team??? its less than wade, bryant, fill in whatever name you want..........YOu said he was a no show, and yet you cant point out the game where he was a no show. Ridiculous amount of shots during crucial times?? well you want Erik Dampier shooting those crucial shots??? YOu must've forgot the 3 pt play vs the Spurs in game 7. Once agian you cant point out the no show game and its laughable you credit erika dampier for playing a substatial role in the mavs run.


Once again, you did not read my post carefully enough. I clearly stated ",If I recall correctly, the issue was not him putting up alot a points but the ridiculous amount of shots he needed in order to do so during *crucial parts of playoffs*. Minutes also do an excellent job of helping you jack up your stats too." You and I both know that Dirk is an impressive shooter which in part helps him to mask some of those horrible games I'm referring to. The bottom line is that considering his real worth to the team is scoring the ball, he can not be caught up in those kind of funks when they need him the most. The playoffs this year against the Warriors where he shot 38.3% for the entire series is a good indication of the kind of games he has when it matters the most. 

P.S., although Erick Dampier does not play a critical offensive role for the team, I think he does play a critical defensive role for that team. Remember that he's usually the guy that has helped turn the Mavs into a capable defensive team and also has to be capable of defending the opposing teams better big man, which says a lot in a very deep Conference of big men.



> HOw many times does it have to happen to marbury before you get it through your skull he doesnt fit anywhere. Ok so every team he leaves gets better, you dont buy it, explain why every team he lands on gets worse?? He's a hard fit?? yea thats why he's not someone you want on your team. No team is built around a PG. NAme me one elite team in the last decade or 2 to be built around a point guard not named Magic.....and even magic had Kareem. YOu dont build around a PG because you just cant win that way.


Every team Marbury lands on gets worse? With Marbury, the Wolves made the playoffs for the first time and got knocked out of the first round. Without Marbury, the Wolves made the playoffs and got knocked out of the first round.

Before Marbury, the Nets were a floundering franchise that were a lottery team. With Marbury, the Nets were a lottery team 2 out of 3 of the seasons he was there; the only exception being that Kerry Kittles and Keith Van Horn missed 55% of the games played with Marbury due to injury.

Before Marbury, the Suns were a floundering team that wasn't going to make the playoffs. With Marbury they were a lottery team 1 out of 2 seasons and that was mainly because they gutted their team to start their rebuilding project.

Before Marbury, the Knicks were a lottery team only getting worse. With Marbury we're a lottery team that is only getting better.

You see a general pattern here? Remind me how teams got worse from adding Marbury. By the way, the Pistons were built around Isiah Thomas and managed to do just fine. The Suns are an elite team that is built around Steve Nash. The Nets were an elite team built around Jason Kidd. The Heat were an elite team built around Wade (Shaq differed to Wade even in his first season; Wade did start at point). You can argue the Pistons were built around Billups because he not only ran an effective offense but also was a key defender on a defensive team built on stopping people (PG is crucial defensively because they can effectively disrupt the opposing teams PG who is responsible for running the offense). You can argue the same about the Jazz with Deron Williams, the guy who came up with the critical baskets against the Spurs. You can say Baron Davis with the Warriors if you consider the Warriors elite after beating the team alot of people believed would win the title. You can name Gary Payton for back in the day with the Sonics.



> Marbury was put in situations where other people need the ball in their hand to find the rhythm to hit their shots??? Like who?? on this team the only player that qualifies is jamal crawford. Don't lie, he had shooters in the past. Kittles could shoot, van horn was putting in 20+ a game back in jersey. You put him on a team full of Jason Kapono's and peja stojakovic's and he'd still lead them to nowhere. ....STop giving him excuses. He doesnt make anyone better, so if you want him to be a winner, you have to surround him with other elite players and that cant happen in NY with the salary cap and all.


Have you taken a look at the teams Marbury has been on? The only accomplished shooter he had in his career was Van Horn. With the Nets, Van Horn was injury riddled. Outside of him there really was no one on that team of consequence except maybe Kerry Kittles and he was far from a jump shooter and in the same situation as Kittles. With the Suns, Marion had not developed any sort of range on his shot as was the case with Amare. No one else on that team was of consequence or became of consequence after Marbury left. With the Knicks, Marbury got back Van Horn but not for long. For some reason we never went to the pick and roll with Kurt Thomas and Tim Thomas became more of a post player, with the injuried Allan Houston out. Remind me, what jump shooters did Marbury have?



> THe knicks are just young and dont know how to win?!!? no they're just not good enough to win consistently. Yea its funny aint it....every "young team that doesnt know how to win" that you say marbury is stuck on, the first year that he leaves they all of a sudden learn how to win. What a huge coincidence.


That is actually not the case at all. If you look at the Nets for instance, they reshaped that team dramatically. Other guys like Van Horn and Kittles got through the injury bugs they had earlier in their career and became more polished veterans. The Nets also had the advantage of playing in a weakened Eastern Conference and with a healthy Kenyon Martin that was not a wide eyed rookie anymore.

With the Suns, Amare was an inconsistent and raw rookie as well. 3 years later, he got Nash but also had time to polish his game. Marion in my opinion did not improve by leaps and bounds but he did refine certain skills like shooting the ball with range. That about covers the teams he's been on.



> Yea his ability to bring back assets means he's got game, but we're not disputing that. We're debating whether or not he can be part of a winning team and its obvious he cant be the centerpiece of one. YOu talk about a drive and kick game but that's not marbury's game. He's a get out of my way and let me shoot player. Look at QRIch, the drive and kick game worked great in phoenix, he comes here and is nowhere near the same player he was on the suns.


LOL, I find it humorous that Marbury is a "get out of my way player" yet somehow managed to be a top 5 league leader in assists accept for last year and this year. I guess the league decided that he chucked the ball so much that they should start jacking up his assist numbers as apart of league wide conspiracy.

By the way, if you haven't noticed a distinct difference in Richardson's health with us as opposed to the Suns, then you need to pay closer attention to games. When healthy this year, he looked pretty damn good on the floor before his back started giving out.



> Is it also immaturity that led to him stupidly anointing himself the best PG in the NBA?? You're the one without facts, just ignorant statement after ignorant statement. Marbury hasnt won a thing in his life outside the PSAL title with Lincoln and his teammates cant stand him. I aint going to name names, but i spent time around the lockeroom working in the sports department of a local tv station and Marbury is the least liked teammate in NY that i've ever seen. Right up there, maybe even worse than AROD....at least in baseball you dont really have to talk to your teammate, plus you're not sharing a ball or anything.......Matter fact if you got a copy of the Knicks media guide this year, turn to the media page titled "the third estate", i'm actually in the picutre standing to isiah's side.


Again, Marbury was not far off from that comment of him being the best PG in the NBA. From an individual standpoint, his got all the skills to consistently beat guys one on one; even Steve Nash admitted that. From a team standpoint, he is not as accomplished as either Nash or Kidd but has never really played on a team that compliment his skills. For Marbury, it's harder to find that mix because he's a scoring PG but that does not mean he can not effectively run a team or be as successful. Building a team takes alot of work and careful planning, so it's obvious why most teams opt to go with the guys that have more versatility.

I've actually met Marbury several times in the past because we both grew up in Coney Island, so I know a little bit about him personally. Although he might not win popularity contests, does that really matter? He's a good guy down inside and that has been evident by his charity work. So what if a few guys don't mesh well with him?



> This team is going nowhere with marbury and will continue to go nowhere with marbury. It's all about me, it's the Stephon show. This is the same selfish guy who hurt the team just to show larry brown up by not taking any shots 2 seasons ago. Yea that was real mature.


[/QUOTE]

LOL, so first you complain about Marbury being selfish with the basketball but when he decided to get his teammates involved more by not shooting, he's still "selfish." That's real interesting reasoning you got going on there.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

> Harper for most of his tenure with the Bulls did not even play half the game (minute-wise) How can he be considered the best ever when that is the case? He only held down the fort for ~20 minutes a game. And the Lakers would have won their 1st ring without Harper, like they did the ones after he left.


Check the stats:
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/ron_harper/index.html?nav=page

Harper played 25.13 mpg. Not jaw dropping but he only played 19.9mpg after coming off his knee issues and if you look carefully at the numbers, his minutes actually increased as he grew more and more fimilar with the triangle. During those stints, he averaged about 1 turnover. Think what you may about Harper but I got my own opinion based on what I saw and what the numbers tell me.



> I never said Harper was a pure point guard. But he wasn't a "gunner" while he was with the Bulls and he played defense, which Crawford doesn't. And that is what this is about...how Crawford (who is a no defense gunner) would fit in with the tri.


Well, you can put it this way the Crawford could be a solid player in the triangle considering he's a big guard and has had experience playing in the system. If you look closely at Harper's early years, he played the same kind of game as Jamal did; a versatile 2 guard that could handle the ball.





> They split it with Kobe. Replace Kobe with Crawford and there is no one to run the team as Crawford is not capable of that.


If your talking about someone to initiate the offense, you still have 3 solid ball handlers and distributors with Jamal Crawford, Lamar Odom and Luke Walton. Although you won't have the same star power as you once did, the triangle was predicated on guys being able to find good shots within the system. If they work as a team, I don't see any reason why the Lakers won't at least be competitive. In addition to that, Crawford is no scrub either considering he could put up 20ppg if you give him the ball.



> Farmar started in the playoffs.


My mistake actually. Your right. I don't know what made me think otherwise.


In the context of your original point (which was that several smaller contracts are easier to move than 1 big contract)they didn't do so well. The only player they traded was Skinner. They still have Thomas for 3 more overpriced years. The Lakers would be better off with the better players in Francis or Marbury and their contracts (which are shorter than Craw and QRich's)[/QUOTE]

Well, the Kings needed PF's and is why I believe they did not look to actively shop Kenny Thomas. He had a hefty contract attached to his name but the guy can put up a double double and that is something that I'm sure all teams are interested in. The guy was a starter both seasons as a King despite them signing and commiting alot of money to bringing in Abdur-Rahim. I think that says something about his ability as a player.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

ron harper was the pg in name only in the triangle , he rarely brought the ball up or set up the offense , it was usually Pippen and sometime MJ...he usually guarded the pg though, but not always.

as for marbury he really has been cast on some pretty bad teams but every single team he was put on was immediately better for his arrival.

the knicks were 14-21 when he arrived , 25-22 after , but he's not a miracle worker and he's not really *the guy *so his impact is somewhat limited , Stephon did not bring the knicks down , H2O's shotty health did .

the best drive and kick guard was matched up with its purest jumpshooter, if that team had stayed together it would have been pretty good with Tim thomas and kurt thomas who are also very good jumpshooters especially on drive and kicks , pick and pops and those sort of plays....but allan's health ruined that overpriced unathletic team so its time to rebuild .

and thats whats been done and rebuilding is usually ugly but they are getting better they were in the playoffs with 5 weeks left in the season before the injuries were too much to overcome.

at this point it would probably be wise to say one of the nba's youngest teams will show some good improvement and make the playoffs next year cenetered around curry and marbury blockbuster trade or no blockbuster.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

TwinkieFoot said:


> Check the stats:
> http://www.nba.com/playerfile/ron_harper/index.html?nav=page
> 
> Harper played 25.13 mpg. Not jaw dropping but he only played 19.9mpg after coming off his knee issues and if you look carefully at the numbers, his minutes actually increased as he grew more and more fimilar with the triangle. During those stints, he averaged about 1 turnover. Think what you may about Harper but I got my own opinion based on what I saw and what the numbers tell me.
> ...


Well, the Kings needed PF's and is why I believe they did not look to actively shop Kenny Thomas. He had a hefty contract attached to his name but the guy can put up a double double and that is something that I'm sure all teams are interested in. The guy was a starter both seasons as a King despite them signing and commiting alot of money to bringing in Abdur-Rahim. I think that says something about his ability as a player.[/QUOTE]


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> Once again, you did not read my post carefully enough. I clearly stated ",If I recall correctly, the issue was not him putting up alot a points but the ridiculous amount of shots he needed in order to do so during *crucial parts of playoffs*. Minutes also do an excellent job of helping you jack up your stats too." You and I both know that Dirk is an impressive shooter which in part helps him to mask some of those horrible games I'm referring to. The bottom line is that considering his real worth to the team is scoring the ball, he can not be caught up in those kind of funks when they need him the most. The playoffs this year against the Warriors where he shot 38.3% for the entire series is a good indication of the kind of games he has when it matters the most.
> 
> P.S., although Erick Dampier does not play a critical offensive role for the team, I think he does play a critical defensive role for that team. Remember that he's usually the guy that has helped turn the Mavs into a capable defensive team and also has to be capable of defending the opposing teams better big man, which says a lot in a very deep Conference of big men.
> 
> ...


LOL, so first you complain about Marbury being selfish with the basketball but when he decided to get his teammates involved more by not shooting, he's still "selfish." That's real interesting reasoning you got going on there.[/QUOTE]

there's just too much to go thru, and i'm getting tired of this.......first off, numbers dont matter as much as how te player plays the game. People call kobe a ball hog, yet he can average over 5 dimes a game....does that mean he isn't a me player?? course not.

I know he's a good guy, but yea it's a problem if people on his team dont like him. It hinders the ability of a team to play together if you dont like who you're playing with. There isn't an elite team in the NBA where one of the team's most important pieces is widely disliked in the locker room.

And there's a difference between being a team player and passing the ball and clearly acting like a child. YOu can be in attack mode and not take 15-18 shots. I want him to take shots and pass as part of the flow of the game. Not refuse to take shots and or pass simply to show up a coach.

If the knicks by some miracle led by marbury have a great season (how about not get completely slaughtered in the 1st round of the playoffs, in the East, shouldnt be that hard) i will be the first person to tell you i was wrong and you were right. But i wouldnt bet on that happening.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

knickstorm said:


> there's just too much to go thru, and i'm getting tired of this.......first off, numbers dont matter as much as how te player plays the game. People call kobe a ball hog, yet he can average over 5 dimes a game....does that mean he isn't a me player?? course not.
> 
> I know he's a good guy, but yea it's a problem if people on his team dont like him. It hinders the ability of a team to play together if you dont like who you're playing with. There isn't an elite team in the NBA where one of the team's most important pieces is widely disliked in the locker room.
> 
> ...


That's the stupidest reasoning I ever heard regarding the assist issue. People call Kobe a ball hog because they are ignorant to what he does on the floor and not for any other reason. I still find it hard to believe that a category that reflects the propensity of a players ability to find his teammates for a basket is somehow this irrelevant. It's funny to me that the "ball hogs" tend to average more of these assists than your prototypical players. I also find it interesting that when you put these "ball hogs" on teams that support and complement their skills, they are very successful ie Chauncey Billups, Baron Davis (this year), etc.

During the Lakers 3peat, Kobe was rumored to be one of the most unliked players on the team yet that didn't hinder their success. Hell, his Airness himself was not a lockerroom favorite because of his arrogance ways. I think they call players professionals for a reason and it's because winning is their main agenda. Sometimes that success is misconstrued but as an athlete, guys put up with alot of nonsense for bragging rights.

Attacking the basket and kicking the ball out to teammates is exactly what Marbury has done throughout his career. Even in the game your referring to, he did not get as deep into the paint as he normally did (not forcing the issue) but he still worked that same game. I think you are just buying into the negative hype about Steph.

I just we'll just have to wait and see for something more definate in regards to Marbury's future. Time will tell.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> First, if Kobe goes there is no guarantee that Phil stays. He knows he won't win with what they get back. Therefore the tri issue is moot. And as a side note - Fisher, Lue, Hunter, Penberthy, Pargo, and Farmar have all been Laker point guards under Phil and the tri. And all are short. So really Crawfords height doesn't matter anyways.
> 
> But the real issue is that Crawford and Richardson aren't good enough to help the Lakers reach the playoffs and both are overpaid (Crawford goes till '10-11 when he will make 10 million) Buss isn't going to pay big bucks unless it is a star player like Marbury or helps them win.


The moves that the Laker organization have made suggest a much different picture than you are trying to paint me. Their additions have been geared more towards rebuilding in a very slow and tedious manor with young players. Winning now does not appear to be the priority and is why Kobe himself is demanding a trade. I doubt what they are looking for are guys that only can give their best at this current moment. Crawford and Richardson fit their plans much better than a Marbury or Francis.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Assist stats...*

Don't necessarily tell the story. If a guy dominates the ball as much as arbury, it is absolutely feasible that he can average 8 assists and still be selfish. I mean, the guy simply cannot take every shot, right? That means he is giving it up and some guys are going to hit open shots. The stat is not irrelevant, just as you said, but it is still subjective to a degree. Fact is, all assists are not equal.

You are way off on Dirk. You're making broad statements that you cannot possible back up. By calling him just a shooter you are ignoring his huge rebounding games when it counted. He is also a good ball handler for his size which allows him to drive successfully against his opponents. He is also a good passer. The fact that he had trouble against the Warriors is hardly evidence of failures. It was a very poor matchup for him...he was the focus of the defense..and the Warriors were on a roll. No one said he was Bird, just a really good player.


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> That's the stupidest reasoning I ever heard regarding the assist issue. People call Kobe a ball hog because they are ignorant to what he does on the floor and not for any other reason. I still find it hard to believe that a category that reflects the propensity of a players ability to find his teammates for a basket is somehow this irrelevant. It's funny to me that the "ball hogs" tend to average more of these assists than your prototypical players. I also find it interesting that when you put these "ball hogs" on teams that support and complement their skills, they are very successful ie Chauncey Billups, Baron Davis (this year), etc.
> 
> During the Lakers 3peat, Kobe was rumored to be one of the most unliked players on the team yet that didn't hinder their success. Hell, his Airness himself was not a lockerroom favorite because of his arrogance ways. I think they call players professionals for a reason and it's because winning is their main agenda. Sometimes that success is misconstrued but as an athlete, guys put up with alot of nonsense for bragging rights.
> 
> ...


Marbury gets all those assists because he dominates the ball so much. If you're trying to equate assists with sharing, would you say Allen Iverson is more of a team player and distributor than lets say jamal tinsley or brevin knight cause he averages more assists??? course not. You bring up Chauncey and Baron and successful seasons??? Detroit hardly had a very successful season (havent really had one since Brown left), single handedly being beaten vs Cleveland. Golden State snuck into the playoffs and got hot at the right time. But be that as it may, you should also check out how many shots marbury jacks up when he gets those assists. I want to see him get more assists without taking as many shots. Cause if you dominate the ball so much, you're going to get the assists cause obviously you cant shoot it every time down the floor. SO let's take a look. Baron in an uptempo, jack up shots asap offense average 2.02 shots per assist. Chauncey average 1.6 shots per assist, where's marbury at? 2.3 shots per assist. So look at that, for every assist that he has to have, he has to take basically an extra shot compared to chauncey.

The Lakers 3peat, had a bunch of veterans, grant, harper, shaw. kobe was still a kid basically for at least the first 2 of those titles and he respected the vets. YOu never saw him yell at brian shaw like he does Luke Walton do you?? SUppose the rumors were true, the lakers had the talent to overcome it, and the knicks obviously dont. *Yes the airness was cocky but his teammates saw how hard he worked and wanted to play hard for him. YOu can't tell me channing frye is going "ohh man look at how hard steph is going at it, i gotta give it my all" * If you're not well liked well you better be an all time great, or inspire people and stephon does neither. Winning is not the main agenda, for players with egos, its winning and being the man that brings home the win is the main agenda.

Last point on dirk, if he's just a shooter, how does he get 20+ ft attempts multiple times in a series?


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Assist stats...*



alphaorange said:


> Don't necessarily tell the story. If a guy dominates the ball as much as arbury, it is absolutely feasible that he can average 8 assists and still be selfish. I mean, the guy simply cannot take every shot, right? That means he is giving it up and some guys are going to hit open shots. The stat is not irrelevant, just as you said, but it is still subjective to a degree. Fact is, all assists are not equal.
> 
> You are way off on Dirk. You're making broad statements that you cannot possible back up. By calling him just a shooter you are ignoring his huge rebounding games when it counted. He is also a good ball handler for his size which allows him to drive successfully against his opponents. He is also a good passer. The fact that he had trouble against the Warriors is hardly evidence of failures. It was a very poor matchup for him...he was the focus of the defense..and the Warriors were on a roll. No one said he was Bird, just a really good player.


Assists don't tell the whole story but I think they are much more relevant than even you give them credit for. The method you use to open up your teammates should be irrelevant to everything except how effective it is. Considering Marbury had been considered one of the best through this measurement, I think we should give him his just due. Just because your a ball mover does not necessarily mean that your somehow doing the right thing. On multiple occassions this year, I saw Diaw pretty much get into the lane and look to pass rather than shoot. Although he may have been "unselfish" in doing so, it did not mean he was doing what was best for the team since he would have the higher percentage shot.

As far as Dirk, I'm hardly making broad statements. Like I said, you can look in at his individual games and see he disappears at crucial points badly. I admit he's improved his rebounding but him just staying on the floor as long as he does, helps jack up those numbers to make them look more impressive than they really are. As I said before, his game does not extend much beyond jump shooting. He has the ability to drive once in a while depending on the teams they are playing. He can not do so consistently and is why the Warriors absolutely wrecked him in the playoffs. Although smaller, the quicker and athletic defenders the Warriors threw at him took away his ability to drive. If your really a big star, teams should not be able to take away your strength. In addition to that, double teams on him are no excuse. Guess what, are suppose to get double teamed and is why they are stars in the first place.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

knickstorm said:


> Marbury gets all those assists because he dominates the ball so much. If you're trying to equate assists with sharing, would you say Allen Iverson is more of a team player and distributor than lets say jamal tinsley or brevin knight cause he averages more assists??? course not. You bring up Chauncey and Baron and successful seasons??? Detroit hardly had a very successful season (havent really had one since Brown left), single handedly being beaten vs Cleveland. Golden State snuck into the playoffs and got hot at the right time. But be that as it may, you should also check out how many shots marbury jacks up when he gets those assists. I want to see him get more assists without taking as many shots. Cause if you dominate the ball so much, you're going to get the assists cause obviously you cant shoot it every time down the floor. SO let's take a look. Baron in an uptempo, jack up shots asap offense average 2.02 shots per assist. Chauncey average 1.6 shots per assist, where's marbury at? 2.3 shots per assist. So look at that, for every assist that he has to have, he has to take basically an extra shot compared to chauncey.
> 
> The Lakers 3peat, had a bunch of veterans, grant, harper, shaw. kobe was still a kid basically for at least the first 2 of those titles and he respected the vets. YOu never saw him yell at brian shaw like he does Luke Walton do you?? SUppose the rumors were true, the lakers had the talent to overcome it, and the knicks obviously dont. *Yes the airness was cocky but his teammates saw how hard he worked and wanted to play hard for him. YOu can't tell me channing frye is going "ohh man look at how hard steph is going at it, i gotta give it my all" * If you're not well liked well you better be an all time great, or inspire people and stephon does neither. Winning is not the main agenda, for players with egos, its winning and being the man that brings home the win is the main agenda.
> 
> Last point on dirk, if he's just a shooter, how does he get 20+ ft attempts multiple times in a series?


Iverson averages more assist by virtue of playing more minutes than Tinsley or a Brevin Knight. I don't know how much of a ball hog Iverson could really be when he's managed to coexist with Carmelo Anthony so well who is no doubt a franchise caliber player. 

As for Billups, I don't know how him winning a title and helping to maintain one of the best regular season and playoff records over the last 5 years is somehow not preceived as being successful in your book. I think your living in a fantasy world or ignoring the facts to prove a point. Billups was and still is one of the most influential basketball players in this game and is projected to be the most sought after free agent this offseason. I don't think that is coincidential.

I think your also completely off base trying to devalue Baron Davis' play by making an excuse that the Warriors snuck into the playoffs. They won a ridiculous amount of games along the lines of 18 out of 21 or something like that to get to where they were. Those kind of streaks just don't happen as a fluke and certainly don't come easy being in the Western Conference. Davis was easily one of the top 3 best performers in the playoffs this year and there is nothing you can say to take away from that. 

As for the whole Marbury issue you raised, I don't see how Marbury taking shots somehow benefits his assist numbers. Your going to have to explain that one to me. I doubt you'd call Dwayne Wade a chuck yet when he was a PG, his shot to assist numbers were not much better than any of those guys. You also obviously have not been paying attention to Marbury very much this season because he was easily putting the ball in his teammates hands moreso than ever before.

LOL, I also just have to chuckle to myself when you attempt to paint a peachy picture of Kobe's relationship with the other Lakers during their 3 peat. The guy almost got into a physical fight with Shaq once, who last time I checked was a veteran at the time. I also recall a report saying how Derek Fisher and several of the Laker players had to have a sit down with Kobe regarding his behavior that basically encouraged Kobe to change his ways because they all understood and respected his talent. He obviously was not one of the most liked teammates but helped get the job done and play a major role in their success. If you somehow believe that Kobe basically sat down on the sidelines as a wide eyed rookie and allowed the veterans to control the flow of the game during that 3peat, I suggest you go and watch some game footage. I could recall two distinct instances during their 2001 title run and 2002 title run where Kobe played a critical role in several games against the Spurs and Sixers when Shaq was either hurt, in foul trouble or just not riding a hot streak.

I also think you should rethink your insinuations that Marbury is not a hard worker. You don't come out chieseled like that, stay as healthy as he has during his career, and log as many minutes as he has without putting time in the gym. You also don't put up the kind of numbers Marbury has from not working your *** off.

P.S., Dirk got to the line as much as he did during those games you are referring to because he's a 7 ft jump shooter. How the hell do you contest that? Factor in the fact that stars generally get calls and you can have an explanation of how he had approached that kind of stat. Let's not also forget that the guy is a pretty good offensive player. My complaint about him is his propensity to disappear big time during certain games and his relatively one-dimensional play that people seem to overlook. He obviously isn't much more than a jump shooter because he only can get to the rim against certain teams while other teams like the Warriors effectively render him a jump shooter because of their athleticism.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Is it so hard to say you were wrong about Dirk?*

He has been a good rebounder for years. Of course he can't succeed against everyone...no player can, except for maybe MJ. Everyone else has situations that make them struggle. It's the norm. Trying to discredit him only makes you look small. LJ disappeared and struggled at times in the playoffs.....is he a choker? Is Duncan? He had a clinker. Certainly Ewing had plenty. You're just simply wrong. A guy with a game like Dirks is easier to defend in crucial situations because he is not a creator, nor a low post player. A smart guy like you should know that.


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> Iverson averages more assist by virtue of playing more minutes than Tinsley or a Brevin Knight. I don't know how much of a ball hog Iverson could really be when he's managed to coexist with Carmelo Anthony so well who is no doubt a franchise caliber player.
> 
> As for Billups, I don't know how him winning a title and helping to maintain one of the best regular season and playoff records over the last 5 years is somehow not preceived as being successful in your book. I think your living in a fantasy world or ignoring the facts to prove a point. Billups was and still is one of the most influential basketball players in this game and is projected to be the most sought after free agent this offseason. I don't think that is coincidential.
> 
> ...


I aint say AI is a ball hog. I just said he isnt a distributor or someone that gets everyone involved just because he has high assist #'s. It was obvious steve blake facilitated much of the offense when he was traded over.

I aint saying billups is garbage, i'm just saying this past season cant be considered "very successful" by detroit's standarda and in any case i think he's superior to marbury while you seem to think they're on par with each otehr. The warrior won a ridiculous amount of games? they won 42, which is 1 game above .500 since when is that considered winning a ridiculous amount of games. 

18 of 21???? gimem break, you never bring facts and when you try, it's bogus lies. They won 9 out of 10 or 11 once to end the season and that's how they snuck in the playoffs. They got hot at the right time and beat the clippers out by a game. Not a fluke?? so what the heck happened vs the jazz? were the jazz superior to dallas?? nope, they just came back down to earth.

I aint trying to take anything away from Baron, I rank him above marbury too. I"m saying even when Baron goes crazy scoring, he still manages to get more assists per shot than starbury.

I can watch all the games i want but the stats dont lie. And did you just put stephon marbury and dwayne wade on the same level?? gimme a break man, dwayne wade was never a PG. Where did you come up with that silly idea. Just cause they passed him the ball on the top of the key and call for him to go 1 on 1 doesnt mean he played point. So i guess when dwayne was the PG, jason williams was playing the 2 or 3 right?? Bottom line is look at the #'s, for every time he passes it, he has to take more shots, which means less team involvment and when other people don't touch the ball they don't play as well. A team's much happier when everyone touches the ball.

MAybe you should stop chuckling and pay more attention in english class. where did i say it was peachy?? Reports? yea that mr loyal phil jackson snitching on Kobe to sell a book. I never said kobe was a wide eye rookie who was a marginal player in the championship run. You gotta read your NY TImes to get that reading comprehension up or something. I just said he was younger than the vets so he wasn't as outwardly vocal as he is today when he's older and more experienced than his teammates. WHen i said kid i didnt mean he played like one. I just meant he wasnt an eleder statesmen on the team. WInning cures everything, and you never heard of a shaq kobe squabble till they lost to detroit. TOo bad the knicks arent winning in the first place.

Man you're just making stuff up to argue. I didnt say marbury isnt a hard worker. I simply said Jordan's competetive fire and work ethic inspired his teammates, and marbury, however hard he works, plays does not inspire his teammates. People dont wanna play for him. The insinuation is that he doesnt inspire/motivate his teammates or make them better.

As for Dirk, what propensity are you talking about. Everyone has bad games, i outlined the 2006 playoffs where he basically showed up big time every single game. So he had a bad series, where is this propensity you talk about??? Jump shooters (regardless of how tall they are) dont get to the line just shooting J's. YOu telling me they couldnt contest DIrk's jumpers so they just kept hacking him as he took 15-20 footers? come on now, they hacked him going to the basket.
He was going to the basket like a madman vs the Spurs in '06, you trying to tell me he he could do it vs the SPurs Defense but not the Warriors?? Dallas had a bad series, it happens. Just cause it happened once doesnt make it the norm.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Is it so hard to say you were wrong about Dirk?*



alphaorange said:


> He has been a good rebounder for years. Of course he can't succeed against everyone...no player can, except for maybe MJ. Everyone else has situations that make them struggle. It's the norm. Trying to discredit him only makes you look small. LJ disappeared and struggled at times in the playoffs.....is he a choker? Is Duncan? He had a clinker. Certainly Ewing had plenty. You're just simply wrong. A guy with a game like Dirks is easier to defend in crucial situations because he is not a creator, nor a low post player. A smart guy like you should know that.


Before we even discuss this, I'll need you to first remove yourself from MJ's balls. Once you've done that we can get into this little debate about how success really should be determined. I understand players can not always play to their best ability night in and night out. I won't even argue the fact that Dirk is a pretty good player. What anger's me most about the situation is that people tend to overhype him. 

I recall almost the same situation a few years ago with Peja Stojackovic, when you had douche-bag after douche-bag line up and swear that he was a MVP caliber player; in fact, most thought he was a more crucial player than Chris Webber. I remember arrogant people like yourself would tell me I'm wrong and how Hedo Turkglu was an even better player. Sure enough as time wore on, the truth was revealed that Peja was nothing more than a one-dimensional player who was one of the best at only that dimension. Dirk in a way follows the same pattern because his entire game is based off his jump shot. When that's not falling, he really does not have much to turn to. Yet, when a guy like Eddy Curry entires the discussion who is cut from the same mold of not having any other intangible assets in the game, he's nothing more than a "decent" or "solid" player. I don't know whether it's because some of you are still on that European craze that has apparently passed or fixed on the concept of the next "Great White Hope" but Dirk simply is not what you make him out to be. In all honesty, I don't think he is even one of the best European's in the league right now.

You could claim all you want that players are entitled to bad games, which they are, but you seldom see a guy like Garnett become irrelevant in a game. You seldom see Kobe become irrelevant in a game. You seldom see Steve Nash become irrelevant in a game. You seldom see LBJ become irrelevant in a game, even in the Spurs series considering they were tripling him. I think gets by on a pass far to often and I do not understand the reason why.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

knickstorm said:


> I aint say AI is a ball hog. I just said he isnt a distributor or someone that gets everyone involved just because he has high assist #'s. It was obvious steve blake facilitated much of the offense when he was traded over.
> 
> I aint saying billups is garbage, i'm just saying this past season cant be considered "very successful" by detroit's standarda and in any case i think he's superior to marbury while you seem to think they're on par with each otehr. The warrior won a ridiculous amount of games? they won 42, which is 1 game above .500 since when is that considered winning a ridiculous amount of games.
> 
> ...


The point about Iverson was that the method through which he gives his teammates looks, should be merited on something more than just personal preference. While Iverson may have not been a pass first PG that some many people seem to be infatuated with, he still did a better job of changing a game.

As for Marbury, I consider him more or less as being on par with most scoring PG's. Teams are very important and he just has not had one that suits his abilities and methods to open up his teammates. 

Billups was still the same Billups he has been in years past. I don't know what major difference you see in him. The fact of the matter is that he has and still gets the job done as a scoring PG.

As I said before with the Warriors, they went on an amazing tear towards the end of the season where they won a ridiculous amount of games. In fact, what I said exactly was "They won a ridiculous amount of games along the lines of 18 out of 21 or something like that to get to where they were. Those kind of streaks just don't happen as a fluke and certainly don't come easy being in the Western Conference." Still, I'm pretty sure your either going to act like you don't understand what I meant or completely ignore the message.

And just as I suspected, you acted like you did not know what I meant. Surprise surprise, you shoot off at the mouth and are wrong *again.* I looked at the stats just to be sure and the Warriors 16 out of the final 21 games to make it to the playoffs. Since I distinctly remember saying "18 out of 21 *or something*," I believe that would make me right and you wrong. Good job on that one. As for them losing to the Jazz, they simply did not match up well with them. It still does not discredit what the Warriors accomplished as a team during the playoffs this year, STOPPING your boy Dirk and knocking off a team that I thought was favorites to win the title this year.

I just love it how you attempt to be smart *** yet you just can't manage to do it quite like me. When the Heat started Dwayne Wade, Eddie Jones, Rasual Butler, Udonis Haslem and Shaq during the 2004-2005 season, who did you think was running the point. Hell, who did you think was running the point before they started Shaq? Watching games help, especially when it comes to situation's like these. Even the manor in which you described in, is the same way most scoring PG's perform. So what are you talking about?

Obviously you been chilling to much with other less informed posters because the Shaq and Kobe feud was well documented well before Detriot was even thought of as a title contender. The excerpt your about to read is from January 23, 2001. Last time I checked, that was in the midst of the Lakers second title. It states: 
"Shaq and Kobe. Kobe and Shaq. The way the Lakers’ dynamic duo is being talked about, you’d think they were married. Their feud has dominated the buzz around the NBA in recent weeks and threatens to implode a team that is the defending champion but is barely clinging to third place in their own division."

...The article latter goes on to state "Neither is bringing in Isaiah “Don’t call me J.R.” Rider. After all, there’s no way he’ll be as much of a sideshow as Dennis Rodman was … no rainbow hair to distract the media." That statement helps suggest that the feud with Kobe and Shaq had existed before that 2000-2001 season. Last time I checked, the Pistons won the title in 2004. Perhaps you should pick up a newspaper so you can get acclimated with a couple facts that you apparently overlooked the past decade. I'll help you get started by giving you the link to the article:

http://www.thehoya.com/sports/012301/sports4.htm

By the way, you may have not meant to insinuate that Kobe did not play a key role in the Lakers winning a title but your statements suggest otherwise. "First off, numbers dont matter as much as how te player plays the game. People call kobe a ball hog, yet he can average over 5 dimes a game....does that mean he isn't a me player?? course not." Sounded to me as though you felt Kobe was more of a detriment to his team than a positive. If you disagree then please make it clear. If you still consider Kobe a "ball hog" who gets his assist numbers from hogging the ball, I find it interesting what that suggests about other "ball hog's" propensity to contribute to a winning team. Kobe obviously would have 3 rings to show for "hogging the ball" as has other guards in the league that you don't apparently favor.

I also know what you said about Marbury and what you said suggested he isn't a hard worker. You stated "Yes the airness was cocky but his teammates saw how hard he worked and wanted to play hard for him. YOu can't tell me channing frye is going 'ohh man look at how hard steph is going at it, i gotta give it my all.'" Not only did you say that but you highlighted it. I just simply paraphrased exactly what you said.

As for Dirk, think what you want. I made my point as far as I'm concerned. I think he's nothing more than the this team's Peja Stojackovic. Like I said earlier, I find it interesting how one one-dimensional player is basically a "winner" in your book yet our developing one-dimensional player has not chance of ever being anything in this league (Eddy Curry). Anyway, I really don't care to be honest.


----------



## CocaineisaHelluvaDrug (Aug 24, 2006)

Get a room ....christ ...i aint even attempting to read these banal essays


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Get a grip, Twinkieboy*

I NEVER posted those things about Peja. I don't like him and never was a fan. I ALWAYS thought he was just a shooter. Lay off the drugs. Which Euro do you consider to be better than Dirk? I love it when you express yourself and show the world what a fool you are. And BTW, I am not an MJ fan. I don't like him, never did. I can, however, recognize that he was the most unstoppable force to EVER play the game....especially in the playoffs. He had good talent around him, but that changes nothing about how good he was. Anything else is just revisionism on YOUR part. Kobe is just am MJ wannabe at this point.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*And with a name like Twinkie*

You shouldn't be talking about another mans balls......if you know what I mean....and I think you do. Especially you.


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> The point about Iverson was that the method through which he gives his teammates looks, should be merited on something more than just personal preference. While Iverson may have not been a pass first PG that some many people seem to be infatuated with, he still did a better job of changing a game.
> 
> As for Marbury, I consider him more or less as being on par with most scoring PG's. Teams are very important and he just has not had one that suits his abilities and methods to open up his teammates.
> 
> ...


lol 18 of 21 and 16 of 21 are two different things. Hey Hank Aaron hit like 760 hrs or something. YOu cant just be in the ballpark and call yourself right. YOu were off by 2 games and thats huge cause 2 less game would've put them nowhere near the playoffs.

You still put marbury on par with scoring PG's, which means you're still nuts. WE've been thru your excuses of teammates not fitting him. He's the damn pg, why shouldnt he try to change his game to fit....ohh wait cuz he cant stand the fact that he might not be the man.

As fas the 04-05 Heat season is concerned, the starting lineup you put out there is the one they had for 15 friggan games out of the 82 game season. Where's DAmon JOnes at?? guess you didnt bother to check that he started 66 of the 82 games. He was running the 1, Wade started at the 2. 

You gotta go take them Kaplan classes and go over your logic and truth tables. Just cause i said Frye doesnt go "oohhh look at how hard stephon goes at it, i cant let him down" doenst mean stephon doesnt work hard. He could very well work hard, and frye would still go "hmm he's a worker" but he wont be inspired and go do extra lifting or anything. 

We agree MJ and Kobe are both workaholics. MJ inspires his teammates to play better thru his passion, emotion etc. Kobe Bryant we agree works hard, but no one's busting their *** for Kobe Bryant. That's what i was saying about Marubry.

Calling Dirk one dimensional is like calling George Bush a scholar. How many one dimensional players win MVP and are consistently on ALL NBA teams?? YOu actually see Eddy Curry developing into a mvp candidate and all nba player? Even with the lack of centers in the NBA he hasnt even sniffed it. If Eddy's so dominant on the inside and all dirk does is shoot....why does Nowitzki outrebound him?


----------



## knicksfan89 (Jan 6, 2005)

bryant wants to be a knick he wants it let him have it I don't know how but we'll find a way


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Get a grip, Twinkieboy*



alphaorange said:


> I NEVER posted those things about Peja. I don't like him and never was a fan. I ALWAYS thought he was just a shooter. Lay off the drugs. Which Euro do you consider to be better than Dirk? I love it when you express yourself and show the world what a fool you are. And BTW, I am not an MJ fan. I don't like him, never did. I can, however, recognize that he was the most unstoppable force to EVER play the game....especially in the playoffs. He had good talent around him, but that changes nothing about how good he was. Anything else is just revisionism on YOUR part. Kobe is just am MJ wannabe at this point.


I never said you posted anything about Peja. All I said was that this whole Dirk discussion reminds me alot of the whole Peja situation a few years back. That's all. Once again, your not that important to have everything revolve around you. As far as a European player I consider to be better than Dirk, I'll start with Pau Gasol. He's been hurt recently but when he's healthy, I think he changes the game moreso than a Dirk. *As far as fools go, I think nothing trumps the idea of Kobe not having more of an impact than Jamal Crawford made by none other than you. * Keep talking pretending to act as though you recall Jordan's game. I might have repost DaGrinch's links to give you a refreshing course; apparently you forgot we had this debate and you got shut down on several ridiculous claims you made.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: And with a name like Twinkie*



alphaorange said:


> You shouldn't be talking about another mans balls......if you know what I mean....and I think you do. Especially you.


So not only have you effectively claimed MJ's balls, your now monopolizing balls around the world so that I can't even use the word? Seems like someone is getting defensive.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

knickstorm said:


> lol 18 of 21 and 16 of 21 are two different things. Hey Hank Aaron hit like 760 hrs or something. YOu cant just be in the ballpark and call yourself right. YOu were off by 2 games and thats huge cause 2 less game would've put them nowhere near the playoffs.
> 
> You still put marbury on par with scoring PG's, which means you're still nuts. WE've been thru your excuses of teammates not fitting him. He's the damn pg, why shouldnt he try to change his game to fit....ohh wait cuz he cant stand the fact that he might not be the man.
> 
> ...


Once again "about" suggests an estimation and not precise information. I said they won ABOUT 18 out of 21 games. Last time I checked, 16 of 21 games is in the ball park. Is fundamental mathematics. I should know, I minor in it.

I still don't know what your still talking about when referring to Marbury. If you caught any game last year, you should have seen a substantially different player that sacrificed his game for his teammates. I still don't fully believe he should do that because no one asks their star to do that. Role players should adjust to stars and not the other way around.

Damon Jones is listed as a PG but his game hardly is anything of what a PG is suppose to do. He's a jump shooter. If you look at the games, Wade was the primary ball handler of that team. Last time I recall, that is generally the trademark of a PG.

LOL, as far as the whole Marbury "not working hard" nonsense, just admit your wrong. The exact why you phrased the sentence suggested that Marbury was an uninspirational guy because of his work ethic. It's simple reasoning that should be innate. The same thing goes for Kobe. Just because you work hard, does not mean it'll equate to wins. Their is a little something called skill and talent that usual factors into winning that the Lakers have little of. Looking at that Bulls roster, they were far from undermanned during Jordan's prime.


----------

