# NBA Atlantic Division Off-Season Grades



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

*NBA Atlantic Division Off-Season Grades* 
By Andy Roth, Contributing Editor 

New York, NY (Sports Network) - The Atlantic Division had only one team finish with a winning record last season (Celtics), and although some members have improved since then, it looks like it will be pretty weak once again. Let's take a look at how each has fared in the attempt to upgrade their rosters.


*CELTICS:* Boston kept its "Big Four" intact by re-signing free agents Paul Pierce and Ray Allen. The Celtics did lose a valuable bench player to free agency with Tony Allen signing with the Grizzlies. Another key sub may not return, as the C's await Rasheed Wallace's decision on whether he'll remain retired. Boston signed free agent Jermaine O'Neal to bolster its front line, which will help with Kendrick Perkins being sidelined to at least December as he recovers from major knee surgery. O'Neal is more of an offensive threat than Perkins, but the Celts will miss his physical presence. In the draft, the Boston picked up guard Avery Bradley and power forward Luke Harangody. Even though Harangody was a second round pick, he may be more ready to step in and contribute this season following a very impressive showing in the summer league. 
Grade: B 

*KNICKS: *Team president Donnie Walsh stripped his roster down to almost nothing over the last two years to get under the salary cap, in hopes of striking free agent gold this summer. What he ended up with was some nice bronze and two straight horrible seasons. Free agent Amar'e Stoudemire was glad to come to New York for a guaranteed $100 million dollars. The only problem was none of his fellow big-ticket free agents wanted to do the same. Point guard Raymond Felton, also a free agent, did opt to join Stoudemire in the Big Apple, signing a three-year contract. Walsh did manage to get some useful pieces for free agent David Lee, as he sent him to the Warriors in a sign-and-trade for Anthony Randolph, Kelenna Azubuike, and Ronny Turiaf. The Knicks had two second-round draft picks, and came away with small forward Landry Fields and guard Andy Rautins. Fields showed some promise in the summer league, while Rautins may be even a worse pick than Jordan Hill was last season. The end result for the Knicks was they got rid of eventual All-Star Zach Randolph and sixth-man-of- the-year winner Jamal Crawford for Stoudemire and Felton. Not much of a trade- off for two horrible seasons, if you ask me. 
Grade: D 

*NETS:* New Jersey had the third overall pick in the draft and selected power forward Derrick Favors. He has a wealth of potential and tremendous athleticism, but it's unlikely he'll have a big impact in his first season. The Nets selected Damion James with the second of their two first-round picks. James played very well in the summer league and may be more polished at this point than Favors. The Nets also picked up some serviceable pieces in the free agent market, signing point guard Jordan Farmar, small forward Travis Outlaw, and shooting guard Anthony Morrow. Farmar gives the Nets a solid backup for Devin Harris, while Outlaw and Morrow can both fill it up from the outside. 
Grade: B 


*76ERS:* The big addition was Evan Turner, the second overall pick in the draft. He struggled in the summer league by his own admission, and you wonder how effective he'll be having to play off the ball in the NBA. The Sixers made one trade of note, sending the highly outsized contract of center Samuel Dalembert to the Kings for center Spencer Hawes and small forward Andres Nocioni. Aside from dumping a bad contract, Philly gets a big man in Hawes that is seven years younger than Dalembert. However, the overall effect of the trade as far as improving the team is likely to be minimal at best. 
Grade: C 


*RAPTORS:* Even though Toronto lost its All-Star power forward Chris Bosh to the Heat via free agency, it actually wasn't a disastrous off-season for the Raptors. Toronto got another lefty power forward in the draft's first round, North Carolina's Ed Davis. He's still very raw and will take time to develop, but the Raptors potentially got themselves a good replacement for Bosh with the 13th overall pick. The Raptors made two free agent signings of their own, inking small forward Linas Kleiza to a very reasonable four-year, $18.4 million dollar deal, and a somewhat unreasonable five-year, $34 million dollar contract to power forward Amir Johnson Kleiza played overseas last year, but was very productive previously backing up Carmelo Anthony in Denver. Johnson earned his hefty payday by averaging 6.2 ppg in nearly 18 minutes per game last season for the Raptors. He does do some good work off the boards and provide a shot- blocking presence, but has always had trouble staying on the floor due to foul problems. Toronto also traded the disgruntled and disappointing Hedo Turkoglu to the Suns for Leandro Barbosa. The Raptors had to be thrilled getting a quality player like Barbosa in exchange for a player who didn't want to be there and is four years older. 
Grade: C+


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

Im interested in the Knicks grade.
Alot of us may not agree with Andy Roth grading the Knicks a "D" 
but Im sure it has more to do with how we went about lowering 
our salary cap, rather than the players we received. 
We put all our efforts at getting the next team franchise player, 
rather than go after a decent starting 5 players in the FA market. 
:kitty:
I may have been one of the TOP pessimistic "die-hard Knick fans" 
the past 5 years by consistently complaining about management/headcoach, and rarely of the Knick players. 
Mainly b/c all the winning NBA teams (2001) kept upgrading and 
adding-on to their coaching-staff while we were doing the oposite 
to our small coaching staff.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Kiyaman said:


> Im interested in the Knicks grade.
> Alot of us may not agree with Andy Roth grading the Knicks a "D"
> but Im sure it has more to do with how we went about lowering
> our salary cap, rather than the players we received.
> ...


the thing is the knicks basically traded players and draft picks for a chance at greatness...but ultimately never had a shot when you consider what was offered to him (wade and bosh a real and immediate chance at a dynasty)

amare , randolph, turiaf and felton are good enough but the team did suffer 2 years of bad play and gave up 2 players who were all stars last season and the 6th man award winner plus hill a pick swap as well a straight up pick and some other servicable players , if you had to do it over again I say zeke thomas' plan was better which was based on aquiring and keeping young talent on the roster plus large ending deals to keep flipping talent til you got some real players you could build a winner around.


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> amare , randolph, turiaf and felton are good enough but the team did suffer 2 years of bad play and gave up 2 players who were all stars last season and the 6th man award winner plus hill a pick swap as well a straight up pick and some other servicable players , if you had to do it over again I say zeke thomas' plan was better which was based on aquiring and keeping young talent on the roster plus large ending deals to keep flipping talent til you got some real players you could build a winner around.


Zeke never had a plan. All he did was sign HORRIBLE long term contracts and give away draft picks. Jefferies, Curry, Starbury, Jerome James, Curry. Its honestly embrassing looking back now. Now only did he get suckered into signing these players but he lost draft picks too.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Truknicksfan said:


> Zeke never had a plan. All he did was sign HORRIBLE long term contracts and give away draft picks. Jefferies, Curry, Starbury, Jerome James, Curry. Its honestly embrassing looking back now. Now only did he get suckered into signing these players but he lost draft picks too.


actually he stated his plan several times, to aquire large deals and have ending contracts and young talent to flip into better players.
nazr for malik rose and a pick(lee)
k. van horn for tim thomas 
mcdyess junk and a couple of picks for marbury
othella deke and a couple of scrubs for crawford
tim thomas mike sweetney for antonio davis and eddy curry
steve francis and frye for zach randolph
kurt thomas for a pick(nate) and qrich

how many players did thomas inherit that even lasted until walsh took over? most of them, have been gone for years , so how much were they really worth?

there was no trade value there for thomas so he made value , he drafted guys who were decent talents or put picks in the deals .

i'm not gonna say all his deals were good but its clear most of the players he acquired had a future while most of the guys he traded away didn't

frank williams was the starting pg(been gone from the nba since 05),houston was still quality but he was soon going to out of commission due to injury k. van horn (hasn't played since 06) kurt thomas is hanging on in chicago and mutumbo who didn't play last season finally retiring at age 43 in 09.

in the end he wasn't a success, but he had nothing to start with ...overpaid aging vets, weak young players and one of the highest salaried teams in the league at least he left a team that had 2 players who made the all star team last year, and a the 6th man of the year winner ...so he didn't leave the cupboard bare...alot better than what he was left by layden.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> the thing is the knicks basically traded players and draft picks for a chance at greatness...but ultimately never had a shot when you consider what was offered to him (wade and bosh a real and immediate chance at a dynasty)


Hard to say if it was worth it because Isiah pretty much turned the Knicks franchise into a laughingstock in the process. It's harder to attract guys when your franchise is in deep turmoil.

I don't have a full understanding of every single move that Isiah made but judging by the results it's quite obvious that the majority of his plans backfired. The Knicks were better off using the conventional method of trading for expirings and tanking for high lottery picks.

It's also puzzling to me why Isiah ignored team chemistry when building a team. It doesn't take a deep observation to see that players didn't get along with each other under Isiah.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> Hard to say if it was worth it because Isiah pretty much turned the Knicks franchise into a laughingstock in the process. It's harder to attract guys when your franchise is in deep turmoil.
> 
> I don't have a full understanding of every single move that Isiah made but judging by the results it's quite obvious that the majority of his plans backfired. The Knicks were better off using the conventional method of trading for expirings and tanking for high lottery picks.
> 
> It's also puzzling to me why Isiah ignored team chemistry when building a team. It doesn't take a deep observation to see that players didn't get along with each other under Isiah.


i thought his main failing was too many similar players(ball dominating guards, marbury, crawford francis nate) offensive bigs who dont play defense (lee, curry,zach, frye) or defensive players who cant shoot ( jyd jeffries, balkman , ariza at that point in his career) no glue guys, you know bigs that take up for teammates after hard fouls, guards that play defense and stretch the floor, i think the players got along fine with the exception of marbury whom the team didn't seem to care for, curry and crawford were best friends nate was close to jamal as well, frye and lee were close, even zach and curry hung out quite a bit...their games didn't mesh though.

i dont think he was done trading players.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

I have a faint memory of Nate Robinson and Zach Randolph not getting along. Didn't Francis and Marbury had a thing back in the day as well?

I just have a hard time picturing the finish product that Isiah was trying to build. While he may have a plan he sure did a good job disguising it and making the moves seem like a series of quick fixes. I understand that he inherited a poor roster and salary situation but he had plenty of time to turn it around.


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> Hard to say if it was worth it because Isiah pretty much turned the Knicks franchise into a laughingstock in the process. It's harder to attract guys when your franchise is in deep turmoil.
> 
> I don't have a full understanding of every single move that Isiah made but judging by the results it's quite obvious that the majority of his plans backfired. The Knicks were better off using the conventional method of trading for expirings and tanking for high lottery picks.
> 
> It's also puzzling to me why Isiah ignored team chemistry when building a team. It doesn't take a deep observation to see that players didn't get along with each other under Isiah.


Great points. He was horrible at building a TEAM. He also took on horrific contracts.



> i dont think he was done trading players.


He had more then enough time to put a good product on the floor and failed.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Truknicksfan said:


> Great points. He was horrible at building a TEAM. He also took on horrific contracts.
> 
> 
> He had more then enough time to put a good product on the floor and failed.



truth be told the 1st team he built was ok(marbury,h2o,timmy thomas, kurt thomas and nazr) 

they started 14-21. thomas' 1st move the marbury trade , followed by the t.thomas deal which brought nazr mohammed as well and they finished 25-22 from that point on. that team could have been good but houston got hurt and without him that team isn't good.

a capped out team without its best player who isn't tradeable and isn't allowed to rebuild through the draft and an overpaid aging roster , young players that haven't amounted to anything , then or now.

he decided to flip contracts for better talents , i said earlier too many similar players were acquired , he didn't build a good team , but he did build up its talent level.

a trio of curry zach and david lee are more talented than whats inside for them now (amare' anthony randolph and turiaf)

the current team is clearly better at small forward with gallo and chandler vs qrich and jeffries.

but the backcourt of crawford, nate and marbury is significantly more talented than felton , walker and azibuke .

but its a better mixture of talents now i dont dispute that , i just think no GM has ever been put in a worst position to rebuild a team, i have to believe it was obvious to thomas that better complimentary players were needed and he didn't do it for other reasons, in truth i have no doubt that he would still be GM if not for the media just killing the knicks every day just by virtue of his friendship with dolan and his plan would be fully realized.


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

Walsh was put into the same horrific spot Zeke was in. A horrible team with no felexability. But Walsh has done in 2 years what zeke couldnt do(in more years), put together a respectable team with a future.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

I have to disagree with DaGrinch here. As much as Zeke was dealt a very bad hand of cards he compounded his errors by acquiring similarly unattractive ballplayers (albiet better players with longer contract) and by giving up our draft picks in the process. Had he simply let the team fall flat on its face, we would have had picks/higher picks in drafts that boasted such talents/all-stars as:

*2004:* Dwight Howard, Andre Igoudala, Josh Smith, Kevin Martin, Loul Deng and Al Jefferson
*2005:* Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Andrew Bogut (drafted Nate Robinson instead of Monta Ellis; drafted Channing Frye instead of Andrew Bynum AND Danny Granger)
*2006: *LaMarcus Aldridge, Brandon Roy, Rudy Gay, (drafted Ronaldo Balkman ahead of Rajon Rondo; drafted Mardy Collins ahead of Paul Millsap)
*2007:* Greg Oden, Kevin Durant, Al Horford, Joakim Noah (drafted Wilson Chandler ahead of Aaron Brooks, Tiago Splitter, Carl Landry and Marc Gasol).

There were several players in those drafts that would have dramatically changed our circumstances in our present...*substantially*. There's a mix of players involved in those drafts that could have been the foundation of a contender. Considering Isiah's ability to find talent in the draft (although highly overstated), I think it is likely we would have had those players as present-day Knicks. Hindsight is 20-20 and I certainly was a huge Isiah Thomas supporter but its difficult to defend the man in light of everything that has transpired since his tenure as Knick president.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Da Grinch said:


> *i thought his main failing was too many similar players*(ball dominating guards, marbury, crawford francis nate) offensive bigs who dont play defense (lee, curry,zach, frye) or defensive players who cant shoot ( jyd jeffries, balkman , ariza at that point in his career) no glue guys, you know bigs that take up for teammates after hard fouls, guards that play defense and stretch the floor, i think the players got along fine with the exception of marbury whom the team didn't seem to care for, curry and crawford were best friends nate was close to jamal as well, frye and lee were close, even zach and curry hung out quite a bit...their games didn't mesh though.
> 
> i dont think he was done trading players.


I actually think his main problem was his basketball philosophy. I believe that in his mind he saw big, cumbersome and physical low-post players (Eddy Curry and Zach Randolph) as being the cornerstone of a winning team. Don't get me wrong, contenders are still made by a teams ability to score in the paint *BUT *traditional big men are a thing of the past. The league is becoming progressively dominated by guard-play and as a result is much more uptempo. As a result, guys like Eddy Curry and Zach Randolph are becoming increasingly irrelevant/poor fits for what most teams run.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

If after inheriting the job Isiah does nothing other than filling the roster with cheap players for 4 years, the Knicks would be in a better position than they were when Isiah was fired. That's why I find it difficult to use the poor roster as an excuse for Isiah because whatever he did it didn't make the Knicks better.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> If after inheriting the job Isiah does nothing other than filling the roster with cheap players for 4 years, the Knicks would be in a better position than they were when Isiah was fired. That's why I find it difficult to use the poor roster as an excuse for Isiah because whatever he did it didn't make the Knicks better.


you say as if he had a choice in the matter ...i'm pretty sure thomas was quoted several times as saying a traditional rebuild was not possible due to ownership as well new york media.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Da Grinch said:


> you say as if he had a choice in the matter ...i'm pretty sure thomas was quoted several times as saying a traditional rebuild was not possible due to ownership as well new york media.


I use to believe that as well but then the question becomes "how was Donnie Walsh able to do it then?" I think with Isiah, it wasn't a matter of can we rebuild but should we rebuild. I think this youtube clip is indicative of this sentiment:

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klsCPtuh2EU&feature=related

His assumption about cap space proved to be faulty. As it turns out, cap space may be every bit if not more valuable than the same expiring contracts he believed to be major assets. When you look at the league, some of the major trades that occurred this offseason have been made for immediate cap relief:
1.) Al Jefferson to UTAH
2.) Michael Beasley to Minnesota
3.) The 4-way deal that brought Troy Murphy to the Nets for Courtney Lee
4.)Tyson Chandler for Erick Dampier's non-guaranteed contract.

Had Isiah just let this team die, we likely would have been better off.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> you say as if he had a choice in the matter ...i'm pretty sure thomas was quoted several times as saying a traditional rebuild was not possible due to ownership as well new york media.


That wasn't my point.

When Isiah made those moves he definitely felt that making the move would be better than not making the move. That's not arguable. I'm sure he was pressured but I don't think that he would've made those moves if he knew that they wouldn't work. In the end if the Knicks win, Isiah would have a job and if they lose, he would be fired. Zeke knew that, he wouldn't have made a move knowing that it was bad for the team even if he was under pressure because it does him no good.

The fact is when you combine all the moves that Zeke made over the years, the result is that the Knicks would be a better team without those moves. I have a hard time finding value in a GM that couldn't beat the natural progression of a team. The NBA draft is made so that bad teams get better every year, you get that without hiring a GM. If the Knicks were set to lose 50 games a year for 5 years because of what Layden did, Isiah's job was to reduce the time of the Knicks being a loser. The fact is he didn't shed any time and might have added extra time because of the mistakes that he made along the way.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

TwinkieFoot said:


> I actually think his main problem was his basketball philosophy. I believe that in his mind he saw big, cumbersome and physical low-post players (Eddy Curry and Zach Randolph) as being the cornerstone of a winning team. Don't get me wrong, contenders are still made by a teams ability to score in the paint *BUT *traditional big men are a thing of the past. The league is becoming progressively dominated by guard-play and as a result is much more uptempo. As a result, guys like Eddy Curry and Zach Randolph are becoming increasingly irrelevant/poor fits for what most teams run.


even with the rule changes and the shift to more perimeter based play in the end small teams dont win titles , its really that simple.

also while curry is a traditional back to the basket big , most of the bigs thomas acquired weren't 

zach is certainly comfortable facing the basket, frye is a perimeter big man , lee is essentially a small forward or swing forward who can really rebound so he plays a post position.

no rule changes can ultimately take a dominant back to the basket out of the game .

what rules stopped shaq or Yao, its not the rules its age and injury, there is more of a place for other kinds of bigs but ultimately the team that takes the easiest shots usually wins , dunks, layups will almost always win out in a 7 game series over jumpshots and thats why the teams that win titles since the rules changed in 2003 have always been big teams the lakers spurs, celts , pistons, heat...these are all big teams and even if they aren't running the offense down there its just as important to have some in your words big cumbursome and physical low post players...even if a team is running their offense through a billups, kobe or wade without a ben wallace or a andrew bynum or a shaq oneal those teams aren't winning titles because they have get through teams with guys like amare or yao or dwight howard on them.

and i do agree with you that most teams run a more perimeter based game , but it actually makes having a low post game even more important , but its like facing a southpaw in boxing , if its not what you are used to facing you wont be as good at defending it as you would if you saw it all the time...but there really aren't many bigs in the league even capable of leading an offense from down there for more than a possession or 2 let alone the whole game....when you have one its important ...ultimately Curry isn't that, Amare' might be but even he had alot of trouble finding his way vs. the lakers size and length.

btw good to see you back.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> That wasn't my point.
> 
> When Isiah made those moves he definitely felt that making the move would be better than not making the move. That's not arguable. I'm sure he was pressured but I don't think that he would've made those moves if he knew that they wouldn't work. In the end if the Knicks win, Isiah would have a job and if they lose, he would be fired. Zeke knew that, he wouldn't have made a move knowing that it was bad for the team even if he was under pressure because it does him no good.


 i agree he felt they would work out , but i think his main goal with most of those deals were accomplished which is why he is still in good standing with dolan as far his decision making goes, he took crap and made it better , 

now did that make a good team ultimately the answer is no , but what is indisputable is that the roster he inherited was far less talented than the one he left behind when he was fired.



> The fact is when you combine all the moves that Zeke made over the years, the result is that the Knicks would be a better team without those moves. I have a hard time finding value in a GM that couldn't beat the natural progression of a team. The NBA draft is made so that bad teams get better every year, you get that without hiring a GM. If the Knicks were set to lose 50 games a year for 5 years because of what Layden did, Isiah's job was to reduce the time of the Knicks being a loser. The fact is he didn't shed any time and might have added extra time because of the mistakes that he made along the way.


half the roster thomas inherited wasn't even in the league more than 2 years later...so moved had to be made , i'm sure you dont think so but its really a fact.

point guard

what future did howard eisley have , or frank williams , or charlie ward ?

what value could they bring in a trade? case in point when thomas took over williams was the starter...and he couldn't it in the league.

shooting guard 
how about allan houston? shandon anderson?

houston was the one legit talent on the roster , but he was untadeable due to his contract and was soon hurt big time , by the time the season ended he was done forever after that season he only played in 20 more games for his career.

small forward 
kvh clarence weatherspoon. the keith van horn deal worked out , it brought in tim thomas and nazr mohammed 2 starters for 1 ...the nazr mohamad deal worked out it brought malik rose who wasn't good anymore and a pick that turned into david lee(aanother whom i believe was mardy collins) so in the end it wound up being K.Van horn for david lee...weatherspoon sucked i beleive he was dealt for mo taylor who wasn't very good but better than spoon

power forward
kurt thomas antonio mcdyess (the active players thomas inherited still playing..although antonio sucked something awful because he was still trying to get his legs together from all the surgeries) mike sweetney othella harrington

center 
maciej lampe, slavko vranes,fred weis, deke mutumbo michael doleac?

was there really alot of value here to make a team any good from deals 2 picks that never came over 2 scrubs and mutumbo who was 38

there were other deals that by themselves were just fine the crawford jerome williams deal for deke mutumbo cezary trybanski and othella harrington 

the deal for zach randolph was a good deal , it only cost frye who is ok and a washed up steve francis

when you really see what thomas had to work with , if you cant rebuild through the draft and the team is over twice the salary cap , but isn't good ...the thing is its easy to say he had time but bad teams stay bad for a reason , the nba is not a charity , just because the crap teams get good picks it doesn't make them good teams , you have teams like the warriors , clippers raptors who get lottery picks virtually every year because they rarely make the playoffs ...it takes more than that ...the best teams are usually made by a combination of good picks, shrewd deals and smart fa signings .

its easy to say you could have left the team alone and done nothing , but he wasn't allowed to build the team through the draft , layden was fired because to dolan the team trotted out for the 2003-04 season was a bad team and in new york it had another fatal flaw , it was boring , every1 may love to hate thomas and the team he built , but at least they were paying attention which alot people had stopped doing alot of the media were focusing on the nets and jason kidd as opposed to watching howard eisley or frank williams running the show in new york.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> half the roster thomas inherited wasn't even in the league more than 2 years later...so moved had to be made , i'm sure you dont think so but its really a fact.


I don't really think that's relevant because I never denied that Thomas was handed a bad roster. The point I'm making is that he didn't handle the situation better than the average GM. Since there isn't a set definition of what an average GM should be able to do, that's why I compared Zeke's moves with a GM that made no moves and simply let the team tank and bad contracts to expire. I'm not saying that's an valid option, but if what Zeke did ended up not being as successful as what I'm describing, I just don't see how anyone can make a case for him being a good (or not terrible) GM.

The part that you're not getting is that I don't believe that not doing anything and tank should be considered the best possible option, it's not. That's the minimum imo of what a "Good GM" should be able to surpass if he was to be called a "Good GM". The fact that Isiah's moves ended up making the Knicks much worse than the above option is why he was fired and now frequently appears on top of the list of the worst GMs in NBA history.

Lastly I don't see how comparing the players that were involved in those trades is relevant. So what if Zeke always got slightly better players in a deal? The fact is he had no sight on the big picture of what he was trying to build. He could stock pile 10 Steve Francis's or 25 Zach Randolphs for all I care, the fact is the team that he ended up with weren't any better, and that's the bottom line.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

TwinkieFoot said:


> I use to believe that as well but then the question becomes "how was Donnie Walsh able to do it then?" I think with Isiah, it wasn't a matter of can we rebuild but should we rebuild. I think this youtube clip is indicative of this sentiment:
> 
> http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klsCPtuh2EU&feature=related
> 
> ...


when you interview for a job you have to sell your plan, thomas' original plan was build on what they had , which he did successfully, the team rebounded and made the playoffs after a 14-21 start, replacing frank williams with marbury at pg, KVH with tim thomas putting deke mutumbo on the bench behind mohammed...by the time the season was over though houston was hurt , never to be the same .

remember crawford was traded for to be a 3rd guard , but because houston never came back to form he started .

when it became clear houston was never going to be the same thomas made a new plan , he had build a drive and kick team based on marbury's penetration to kick outs to houston tim thomas and kurt thomas ...with houston being one of the best shooters in the game and marbury being among the best penetrators the offense worked well...without houston its not nearly as good ...its easy to say i'm gonna just let deals expire , but if its not what your boss wants to hear can you do it?

even walsh who sold dolan on summer 2010, he was hired in april 2008 ....4/08 to 7/10 is 27 months all the while he hired d'antoni , the goal was not to suck but to be competitive at least in the running for the playoffs if not a playoff team, it wasn't to let the team die and build through the draft but to rebuild quickly , to be a team that could net themselves lebron because he felt he could win here .

that didn't happen , not only didn't he come but other team with the same plan for James could make much more convincing arguments that their supporting talent was better (the clippers, bulls nets and heat all had very compelling sides of the story with Miami blowing everyone out the water.)which leaves us with this

when you compare rosters i have said the current one is constructed better but it isn't more talented

when walsh was hired the plan was to suck while gutting the team for cap space in 2010 for basically the exact same purpose thomas was flipping talents ...chasing lebron.

building a team that could ultimately leverage a deal for james , and it never lasted long enough for him to reach that goal, but on a year to year basis you could see from a talent prospective the team was growing .

alot of trades involving cap space happened this season because alot teams had cap space , usually only a few have significant space and usually no one with a choice wants to go to those teams , 
remember when garnett initially refused a trade to the celts until after they acquired ray allen?

heck even david lee was nixing deals as a knick.

established stars generally dont entertain going to gutted teams , their money isn't in question , so all they are concerned with is the ability to win. Amare was not an established max salaried guy , he is really good , he went to the team that offered him the most money. i'm sure the knicks can be successful, but i dont know i would call it a successful offseason more like a salvaged one.

if i had my druthers i would rather have rolled the dice and see where thomas' plan would have turned out even if he had sat on his hands not traded anyone, the knicks would still have jared jeffries, their pick from 2009 (hill or whomever) not owe the rockets a future pick and a possible swap. up to 3 possible mle level players or any combination or players and used mle money on...and thats 17-18 million on money to sign players who fit in better.

especially knowing how this offseason turned out.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> I don't really think that's relevant because I never denied that Thomas was handed a bad roster. The point I'm making is that he didn't handle the situation better than the average GM. Since there isn't a set definition of what an average GM should be able to do, that's why I compared Zeke's moves with a GM that made no moves and simply let the team tank and bad contracts to expire. I'm not saying that's an valid option, but if what Zeke did ended up not being as successful as what I'm describing, I just don't see how anyone can make a case for him being a good (or not terrible) GM.
> 
> The part that you're not getting is that I don't believe that not doing anything and tank should be considered the best possible option, it's not. That's the minimum imo of what a "Good GM" should be able to surpass if he was to be called a "Good GM". The fact that Isiah's moves ended up making the Knicks much worse than the above option is why he was fired and now frequently appears on top of the list of the worst GMs in NBA history.
> 
> Lastly I don't see how comparing the players that were involved in those trades is relevant. So what if Zeke always got slightly better players in a deal? The fact is he had no sight on the big picture of what he was trying to build. He could stock pile 10 Steve Francis's or 25 Zach Randolphs for all I care, the fact is the team that he ended up with weren't any better, and that's the bottom line.


14-21 is basically on pace for 32-33 wins on an aging team thats gets worse over time not better and that was a team with a healthy allan houston...without a healthy allan houston that the next year doesn't get 25 wins .
it wouldn't be able to score and not athletic enough to be good defensively either.

the fact is he did have insight to the team he wanted to build , it just was gonna take some time.

and truth be told the system for judging a GM has to be better than did they improve ...sometimes a team is better or worst based on the previous GM ..sometimes a team is young and is naturally going to get better anyway...case in point portland they fired their GM on draft night but its a young team thats well built . the GM could just sit on his hands and they could be a 60-65 win team just because oden will play more and team maturation .

its what you do based on what you have thats always important ...in fact its always the most important thing.


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> you say as if he had a choice in the matter ...i'm pretty sure thomas was quoted several times as saying a traditional rebuild was not possible due to ownership as well new york media.


But then how did walsh do it? Zeke was wrong about not being able to rebuild. He should of scrapped a few years and started over.

I mean shoot, MSG was packed for 2 years while we tanked for the summer of 2010. So the "cant rebuild" in NY is bullcrap.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Truknicksfan said:


> But then how did walsh do it? Zeke was wrong about not being able to rebuild. He should of scrapped a few years and started over.
> 
> I mean shoot, MSG was packed for 2 years while we tanked for the summer of 2010. So the "cant rebuild" in NY is bullcrap.


he didn't sell dolan on a traditional rebuild either 

he intended the team to be at least a playoff contender i already answered it



> even walsh who sold dolan on summer 2010, he was hired in april 2008 ....4/08 to 7/10 is 27 months all the while he hired d'antoni , the goal was not to suck but to be competitive at least in the running for the playoffs if not a playoff team, it wasn't to let the team die and build through the draft but to rebuild quickly , to be a team that could net themselves lebron because he felt he could win here .
> 
> that didn't happen , not only didn't he come but other team with the same plan for James could make much more convincing arguments that their supporting talent was better (the clippers, bulls nets and heat all had very compelling sides of the story with Miami blowing everyone out the water.)which leaves us with this


but you dont have to believe me others remember it the same way

http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nba/columns/story?columnist=oconnor_ian&id=5079972



> Mike D'Antoni was going to improve the product, at least that was the plan. He was going to entertain the fans with his helter-skelter approach, make the Knicks watchable and credible until they signed some real talent in the summer of the city's wildest hoop dreams.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


they were supposed to be better but they really weren't 

they were supposed to be less drama , but it didn't happen that way either losing teams always have drama ...winning teams solve their problems or at least make winning more important , that didn't happen here.

the last 2 seasons were supposed to be the beginning of a righteous turn, of better more crowd pleasing b-ball and it really wasn't not with duhon walking it up the court and them not winning anymore than before 

and more importantly it was supposed to show the league how much fun it is to be a knick so they can recruit and acquire guys like wade and james ...that didn't happen either the team's rep didn't suddenly turn good in fact it was the major hurdle in the free agent chase.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Da Grinch said:


> even with the rule changes and the shift to more perimeter based play in the end small teams dont win titles , its really that simple.


I'm not necessarily saying that small teams win titles. I'm saying that the engines of those titles have mostly been swingmen i.e. Kobe Bryant, Paul Pierce, Chauncey Billups, Dwayne Wade, hell even Tony Parker won Finals MVP the last time the Spurs won. In order to win a title, you do need a big man with some offensive ability but those men do not need to be the centerpiece on a team nor do they have to be traditional back the basket big men like Curry and Randolph.



Da Grinch said:


> also while curry is a traditional back to the basket big , most of the bigs thomas acquired weren't
> 
> zach is certainly comfortable facing the basket, frye is a perimeter big man , lee is essentially a small forward or swing forward who can really rebound so he plays a post position.


While that may be the case, the men Isiah envisioned as his starters at the 4 and 5 spots for the future were Eddy Curry and Zach Randolph; both of whom score primarily in deep post. The other guys were either just backups or trade assets to eventually trade for Randolph (or a guy like him).



Da Grinch said:


> no rule changes can ultimately take a dominant back to the basket out of the game .
> 
> what rules stopped shaq or Yao, its not the rules its age and injury, there is more of a place for other kinds of bigs *but ultimately the team that takes the easiest shots usually wins , dunks, layups will almost always win out in a 7 game series over jumpshots* and thats why the teams that win titles since the rules changed in 2003 have always been big teams the lakers spurs, celts , pistons, heat...these are all big teams and even if they aren't running the offense down there its just as important to have some in your words big cumbursome and physical low post players...even if a team is running their offense through a billups, kobe or wade without a ben wallace or a andrew bynum or a shaq oneal those teams aren't winning titles because they have get through teams with guys like amare or yao or dwight howard on them.


I think the rule changes certainly hurt traditional "back to the basket" big men a lot. These rules effectively took the physicality out of the game, which hurt the Eddy Curry's and Shaquille O'neal's of the world more than any other. It became a crushing reality for me the year we brought in Randolph and how any flop against either of our big men were called fouls. In many cases, our guys were simply trying to gain position to initiate the post-up and fouls were called. 

As much as you need big men, I don't believe big men in the mold of an Eddy Curry or Shaq fit that bill anymore. Many of the big men of recent title contenders/champions, have all been finesse big men as opposed to power, deep-post scorers. Garnett, Gasol, Duncan and Rasheed Wallace immediately come to mind. They get you your points in the paint but are not as centerpiece of your success nor in the fashion that traditional bigs like Shaq/Curry do.




Da Grinch said:


> and i do agree with you that most teams run a more perimeter based game , but it actually makes having a low post game even more important , but its like facing a southpaw in boxing , if its not what you are used to facing you wont be as good at defending it as you would if you saw it all the time...but there really aren't many bigs in the league even capable of leading an offense from down there for more than a possession or 2 let alone the whole game....when you have one its important ...ultimately Curry isn't that, Amare' might be but even he had alot of trouble finding his way vs. the lakers size and length.
> 
> btw good to see you back.


Good to see you back too.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Da Grinch said:


> when you interview for a job you have to sell your plan, thomas' original plan was build on what they had , which he did successfully, the team rebounded and made the playoffs after a 14-21 start, replacing frank williams with marbury at pg, KVH with tim thomas putting deke mutumbo on the bench behind mohammed...by the time the season was over though houston was hurt , never to be the same .
> 
> remember crawford was traded for to be a 3rd guard , but because houston never came back to form he started .
> 
> ...


I think you said it best. Established stars don't want to go to a struggling franchise if they can help it. Walsh's plan has given the Knicks a legitimate opportunity to win by building a team as opposed to a collection of "talent." Moreover, Walsh has created the flexibility and assets necessary to make such ambitions feasible. As much as I thought the Knicks were in the runnings for Garnett and Kobe when they demanded trades, was there ever really any chance of that happening? Fast-forward to the present and Carmelo Anthony and Chris Paul both are realistic prospective Knickerbockers. 

As much as Isiah's plan shifted gears due to Allan Houston's injury, you said it best yet again; which players on that roster actually stuck in the league 2 yrs after their tenure with the Knicks? The plan was faulty to begin with because it sought to build a winner with a group of guys that would no longer be NBA-caliber. Hindsight is 20-20, so I'm not trying to be overly critical of Isiah but he had access to doctor reports, to materials and other resources that should have told him that this plan would end badly. Instead, he stuck to his guns, surrendered the real ticket to improving this roster (draft picks) and ended up with better players but with huge flaws in character and professionally. 

The real name of the game (team-building) here is flexibility. You build a winner by being able to utilize a multi-tude of assets in the form of: (1) cap space/money/financial flexiblity, (2) draft picks and (3)trades. Cap space/money/financial flexibility and trades were never serious options for us to build a winner because of how poor the quality of talent was AND how ridiculously high our financial committment to those players were. Draft picks were the only serious option available to improve this team and he should have done everything in his power to shift around the deck *without *surrending those picks with exception to the Marbury deal. If I could do it all over, in that situation, I would have still made the Marbury deal given his value on the court and value when flipped in a trade. But the move for Eddy Curry was piss-poor especially when you consider that Channing Frye would have been a more than capable center for us, given Marbury's drive-and-kick game. I believe that both the Curry deal and unwillingness to move Marbury when he started becoming disgruntled proved to be unforgiveable.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Here was the 2003-2004 roster the year Marbury was traded for and we made the playoffs, in addition to the year their contracts would expire:
*STARTERS*
Stephon Marbury...PG (expired 2009 offseason)
Allan Houston...SG (expired 2006 offseason) 
Tim Thomas...SF (expired 2006 offseason)
Kurt Thomas...PF (expired 2008 offseason)
Nazr Mohammed...C (expired 2006 offseason) 
*ROTATION*
Frank Williams...PG (expired 2005 offseason)
Anfernee Hardaway...SG (expired 2006 offseason)
Shanndon Anderson..G/F (expired 2006 offseason)
Othella Harrington...PF (expired 2006 offseason)
*BENCH FODDER*
Cezary Trybanski...C
Moochie Norris...G (expired 2006 offseason)


...Like I said earlier, the Marbury trade was a pretty good move. None of the pieces we surrendered were relevant aside from that draft pick in 2010, which was so far into the future that it would have been irrelevant had the Knicks retooled properly. In the meantime, Marbury would make the team more competitive, bring excitement and most importantly increase the trade value of the players around him. As you can see, a majority of the players on that roster would have expired in 2006. Had Isiah just stood pat, let the pieces fall where they may in the draft, he would have inevitably had himself a team or at least the pieces (via the draft) to acquire one. 

His next move for Jamal Crawford and Jerome Williams I actually liked and still like. The only problem is that it prolonged the agony by improving the team enough to not get a pick high enough to select the Andrew Bogut's, Deron Williams or Chris Paul's of the '05 draft and too high to land the inevitable steals of the draft, Andrew Bynum and Danny Granger. Moreover, Monta Ellis was in that draft and would have effectively replaced anything Crawford did for us that season without having to make such a steep financial commitment to him. As it turns out, while most people laud Isiah for that draft, had he really drafted well, he could have walked away with all 3 (Andrew Bynum, Danny Granger and Monta Ellis) that are currently all-star caliber players. You want to talk about not having much to work with, well you need look no future as this draft as the golden opportunity missed to seriously improve the team.

In either case, the Curry deal really was the the vain of Isiah's tenure here in spite of how overpaid Jared Jefferies and Jerome James were. The Eddy Curry deal, effectively cost us a shot at two eventual all-stars in Brandon Roy/LaMarcus Aldridge in the '06 draft and also Joakim Noah in the '07 draft. Hell, had he not made the Curry deal, he would have been just fine and probably still be team President.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

TwinkieFoot said:


> Here was the 2003-2004 roster the year Marbury was traded for and we made the playoffs, in addition to the year their contracts would expire:
> *STARTERS*
> Stephon Marbury...PG (expired 2009 offseason)
> Allan Houston...SG (expired 2006 offseason)
> ...


to me the curry deal was a good deal at the time, but it didn't work out well.

he only played well in 1 season i thought in part to them overreaching on his ability, and in part because he is lazy and injury prone.

he cant pass, its hard to have someone be the centerpiece of your offense if you cant pass, and he is a poor help defender (because of his physical gifts he is always gonna be decent in man to man as long as he is guarding a true center) you can live with his poor rebounding #'s because he is good at boxing out so as long as you have decent rebounding at other spots on the floor you'll be fine there...the knicks were actually one of the better rebounding teams in the league during curry's good season which he played 35 minutes a game when he's played less even though in theory better rebounders were playing instead of him the team rebounded over the course of the games at a lower level.

i stand by my assertion at the time that brown was trying to lose, which was the determination of thomas and dolan which is why he only coached 1 season, case in point brown thomas and dolan met in tenn. in early march and discussed how brown was using Curry and from that point on Brown stopped putting curry in as an initiator of the offense and only as a finisher and curry shot something like 65% fg for the rest of the season.

without that curry deal the knicks might have been a better team that season and won more than 23 games thus not being in a position to draft 2nd overall, they won 33 games the season before and after the curry trade, so if not a brown tanking it was extremely bad luck, if the knicks win in the neighborhood of 33 they are drafting after #6 and after tyrus and aldridge there were no good bigs at all in the draft , it really wasn't a good draft period , but after the aldridge selection the bigs picked were shelden williams , sene, pat o'bryant, shawn williams,hilton armstrong cedric simmons , josh boone and joel freeland were the remaining big men in the 1st round.

but like i said before in previous posts thomas wasn't in a position to sit on his hands he ended the previous season with sweetney and kurt thomas as his starting bigs, with malik rose and mo taylor backing them up , the team needed size in the worst way, and they draft frye traded for curry and signed jerome james...not the best trio but it was one with size .

i have heard thomas say why he didn't draft bynum (saying he was from so nearby in new jersey so he would have too many distractions and was too young to play under the kind of scrutiny he would have in new york ) outside of trevor ariza i dont think thomas drafted anyone with less than 3 yrs college experience, he appears to have a preference in that area. he could have drafted granger , but at draft time i remember the knicks were going in looking for bigs , i missed out on granger's game too , i thought he had a good all around game sort of like a luol deng like impact, he's been a much better scorer than i anticipated


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Da Grinch said:


> to me the curry deal was a good deal at the time, but it didn't work out well.
> 
> he only played well in 1 season i thought in part to them overreaching on his ability, and in part because he is lazy and injury prone.
> 
> ...


I can't lie, I thought the Eddy Curry deal was a good move when it was first made. I use to think that a "proven (I use the word loosely)" commodity was always better than an unknown one (draft picks). How wrong was I about that. 

I remember when Isiah cut Slavko Vranes and moved Maceji Lampe, he said that the Knicks were not a good enough team to rely on projects, which is ironic considering that we brought in Eddy Curry a season later. I don't know how I or he could have ever imagined Curry making a big enough difference to make us a playoff team when he was so far from being a complete player. Clearly trading those draft picks were going to be a bad idea, considering the odds stacked against us making the playoffs.

To Isiah's defense, his coaches did suck. Larry Brown was purposely throwing ball-games (can't figure out why) and Lenny Wilkens was too far out of touch with today's players. *I never understood why Wilkens decided against playing Tim Thomas at the 4.* I still feel like that guy could have been one of the premier 4's in the league had we given him time at the position to exploit mismatches against slower, clumsier big men. We saw a glimpse of what he could do years later (and out of his prime) with the Suns, who beat a Laker team in part due to Thomas' excellent play.

As for Larry Brown, despite him throwing games, I doubt we would have been a much better team than we were. Brown would have figured out a different approach to do so and the same injuries would likely have happened. Even if we played ourselves out of selecting 2nd in the draft, Rudy Gay was available much later and we could have selected him.

I also don't buy the need for Curry. Had we just kept Nazr Mohammed (and his terrible hands), we would have been fine until a suitable replacement was found. Most teams in the league at that time had PF's playing the C position anyway, so we were not necessarily at a disadvantage unless we were playing the better teams of the time. At 6-9 and with excellent post skills, I thought Mo Taylor was capable enough of playing backup 5. Instead, we ended up moving Mohammed for a 6-7 Malik Rose and draft picks. Albiet one of those picks did turn into David Lee, was a starting center worth several late first round picks that could have been bought for cash?


I also understood the premise for not drafting Bynum and it was a good one. I don't think he could have become what he did in NY especially with the pressure for him to perform well immediately. Maybe the other noteworthy big man in that draft is who we should have ended up with. *I still can't help but feel that if we had not made the Jamal Crawford trade, we could have ended up with the 3 fewer wins necessary to draft Andrew Bogut at the no.1 spot in that '05 draft. *Marbury and Bogut would have made a hell of a combo when Bogut developed into a starter- a process that could have been slowly transitioned with Nazr Mohammed, Dekembe Mutombo (never involved in the Crawford deal) and Mo Taylor still on the team. 

As for Danny Granger, I called him being a player in that draft. I was hoping we'd use the 21st and Ariza to move up to get him at the time but it never happened. He was such a good shooter and so seasoned that I thought he would have excelled next to Marbury. I guess I was also wrong about him in this sense because he clearly didn't need Marbury. What a huge difference he would have been though had it happened.


P.S., Isiah Thomas selected Wilson Chandler as a Sophomore out of DePaul. I guess he was the one guy (along with Ariza) that broke the mold.


----------

