# Isiah Lists Eddie Curry As "Untouchable" In Any Trade Deals



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

> Thomas said during the pre-draft camp *Eddy Curry would not be included in any proposal for Bryant, but everyone else was on the table,* including Channing Frye. Frye told The Post yesterday he does not want to leave the Knicks, but understands the reality. Frye and Bryant have the same agent, Rob Pelinka, who could help orchestrate a trade.
> 
> "He's my agent, I talk to him," said Frye, appearing at the iStar Charity Foundation Shootout yesterday at the Garden. "I love New York. I'll give 110 percent, but every week someone has me in a trade rumor. . . . I'd like to stay here. But it's a business." Frye, David Lee and Jamal Crawford are the Knicks' three most marketable players outside of Curry. The three likely would have to be packaged with a first-rounder and $3 million cash.


http://www.nypost.com/seven/0619200...atest_blemish_for_kobe_knicks_marc_berman.htm


----------



## thatsnotgross (Dec 4, 2006)

So let me get this straight, Curry is untouchable if a guy like Kobe and Garnett is available. Okay Mr. Thomas. <rolleyes>


----------



## Krstic All-Star (Mar 9, 2005)

Well, it makes sense. For better or worse, Eddy Curry is the symbol of Isiah's tenure at the Knicks.


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

well mr. frye.....you wouldn't be put into so many trade proposals if you actually showed up this past season and played well.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Bullcrap*

Lee was wonderful and he has been included in every proposal as well. They are included because they are wanted. Heard anyone say they weren't interested in Frye?


----------



## EwingStarksOakley94 (May 13, 2003)

I would trade Curry for Kobe or Garnett without any hesitation. I can't see calling anyone on the Knicks "untouchable" when the return is either Kobe or KG.


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

LOL i could just imagine the phone call

*GM:* So Isiah....you want "insert superstar"
*Isiah:* yea i got a good news and bad news
*Isiah*: i'll give you anything you want, you name the price.....ohhh bad news....except....eddy curry
*GM:* awww man...bummer.....whats the good news? 2-3 years of unprotected 1st rounders and the right to switch picks??
*Isiah:* nah.... the good news is i'll give you CHanning Frye....man i cant believe i said that, better take me up on that before i change my mind


----------



## da1nonly (May 8, 2006)

I agree. Keep Eddy Curry. He cost the knicks tyrus thomas and another amazing player this year. He HAS to show EVERYONE how good of a GM isiah is before he can go.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

da1nonly said:


> I agree. Keep Eddy Curry. He cost the knicks tyrus thomas and another amazing player this year. He HAS to show EVERYONE how good of a GM isiah is before he can go.


Or if he gets traded in a deal for Kobe...pretty sure that would make up for it.


----------



## thatsnotgross (Dec 4, 2006)

If IT were to put Curry as an untouchable and it happens to be a mega superstar in return. IT basically stamp his way to being one of the worst GMs in all 4 major sports for NY. Hes already on his way but this just tops it off.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Blazer Freak said:


> Or if he gets traded in a deal for Kobe...pretty sure that would make up for it.


It would have to be Curry, Lee, Frye, 1st rounder next year, etc. at least for Kobe. Not just Curry. Curry is worth about 30% of Kobe Bryant at this point.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

i would NOT gve up eddy curry in a deal for bryant. i would try my hardest to get kobe without giving up Curry.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

the thing is this .

kobe has been in the league 11 years now , its hard to imagine him as a guard(on both sides of the ball) playing at this level for more than 3 years in fact there were signs this past season he is slipping defensively...as a scorer Kobe is awesome , but I am not sure that I would trade a 24 year old center whose best years are still in front of him and will likely be a 20 point a game scorer with a very high FG% for the next 10 years for a guard who will be awesome for a few more years but then probably not so much.

outside of curry no one else projects to be a top 5 player at their position from here on so they are on the table...and they should be , curry is the only exception and thats how its supposed to be , no one wants to do a richmond-webber .


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Kobe wouldn't have to do so much*

if the Knicks traded Curry. There would be plenty of other guys to pick up the slack. He would be more able to pick his spots and it would extend his career. Curry will be 25 in the beginning of the season, which will be his seventh. His wheels will also wear out sooner than most because of the miles. No way he stays on top of his game until he is 35. That is wishful thinking. He may outlast Kobe, but who cares? We would still have younger guys in their primes plus a huge contract coming off the books in Kobe. Not to mention a couple of titles. What projections are you talking about? 

You don't need to have your center be top 5. You have the #1 guy with Kobe, a solid #2 in Marbury, Qrich and Frye are both capable offensive options, and Lee is the perfect role player. Could be a stronger shot blocking team, but no real weakness. A contender for the next 5 years.

Lets see your projected team post trade.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

*Re: Kobe wouldn't have to do so much*



alphaorange said:


> if the Knicks traded Curry. There would be plenty of other guys to pick up the slack. He would be more able to pick his spots and it would extend his career. Curry will be 25 in the beginning of the season, which will be his seventh. His wheels will also wear out sooner than most because of the miles. No way he stays on top of his game until he is 35. That is wishful thinking. He may outlast Kobe, but who cares? We would still have younger guys in their primes plus a huge contract coming off the books in Kobe. Not to mention a couple of titles. What projections are you talking about?
> 
> You don't need to have your center be top 5. You have the #1 guy with Kobe, a solid #2 in Marbury, Qrich and Frye are both capable offensive options, and Lee is the perfect role player. Could be a stronger shot blocking team, but no real weakness. A contender for the next 5 years.
> 
> Lets see your projected team post trade.


They're gonna still want Frye IMO.

The Lakers have Andrew Bynum and if they trade Kobe then there is no doubt they are in a rebuilding mode. I think trading for Curry, from the Lakers perspective would appear to be redundant, and it would better serve them to take a contract that will expire soon, get a pick, and take Frye who is still on his rookie contract for the next two seasons.

That way they will have a contract come off the books, a draft pick, a young center, and flexibility to get back in the game. Taking Curry back in a trade would be committing to Curry as their big man for the next 5 years at least, and losing valuable time for Bynum to develop IN games.

As for the Knicks, Kobe can do it all on the perimeter and handle himself in the Post. Marbury as the number 2 doesn't mesh IMO, and would be better as the guy behind Kobe and Curry. It would be a new challenge for Marbury to tell him to be the glue, but I'd rather that than say you and Kobe are no 1 and 2.

I wouldn't want to rest anything on Frye when its possible to still keep Curry who does one thing really well over Kobe and that is score in the paint. There's nthing Frye does thats better than what Kobe does offensively.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Big deal...*

that Curry is better down low than Kobe. Kobe is a guard and won't be spending much time there. While Frye is no Curry down low, he is adequate to keep teams honest and because he is 100 times the outside shooter Curry is, can draw a big away from the basket and clear space for Kobe and other penetrators.

If you read my other posts, I suggest that Curry would be re-routed to a third team who needed a center and could add something to the Lakers like, say, Atlanta, who might like Curry and could give up #4 and Marvin Williams, for example. Hawks end up with Curry, Smith, Childress, JJ, and whoever. Knicks have Marbury, Kobe, Qrich, Lee, and Frye. Lakers have Bynum, Williams, JC, #4 pick, and #23 pick. Considering what they all have now, I could live with that as a fan of any of the teams.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Kobe wouldn't have to do so much*



alphaorange said:


> if the Knicks traded Curry. There would be plenty of other guys to pick up the slack. He would be more able to pick his spots and it would extend his career. Curry will be 25 in the beginning of the season, which will be his seventh. His wheels will also wear out sooner than most because of the miles. No way he stays on top of his game until he is 35. That is wishful thinking. He may outlast Kobe, but who cares? We would still have younger guys in their primes plus a huge contract coming off the books in Kobe. Not to mention a couple of titles. What projections are you talking about?
> 
> You don't need to have your center be top 5. You have the #1 guy with Kobe, a solid #2 in Marbury, Qrich and Frye are both capable offensive options, and Lee is the perfect role player. Could be a stronger shot blocking team, but no real weakness. A contender for the next 5 years.
> 
> Lets see your projected team post trade.


centers last much longer than guards...thats pretty much the rule thumb in basketball as long as there have positions.

kobe has 5 extra years on curry plus extensive playoff trips , if curry cant make it to 35 you must think kobe will be wilting any moment now.

in no trade scenerio do i see curry going because kobe isn't worth it , he isn't the only star in the league and 2 guard isn't really a weakness on the team, the major weakness is power forward, if i were zeke if the price were curry i dont care what else is included , i would just pass and concentrate on j. oneal, garnett and r. lewis.

so there are no trade scenerios just like when the lakers asked about o'neal and they said bynum and odom and the talks stopped that moment.

sometimes there are dealbreakers.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Agree in principle*

don't really need him and bigs last longer. Curry's game, however, is built on quickness and agility. He will not be at the top of his game at 35......not even close.


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

*Re: Kobe wouldn't have to do so much*



Da Grinch said:


> centers last much longer than guards...thats pretty much the rule thumb in basketball as long as there have positions.
> 
> kobe has 5 extra years on curry plus extensive playoff trips , if curry cant make it to 35 you must think kobe will be wilting any moment now.
> 
> ...


 Most centers dont last (physically) as long as guards. They may have jobs longer or be able to hang around a team longer but that's only because of the dearth of big men who can play in the NBA.

Agree with AlphaOrange, Curry needs his agility and quickness to succeed and when that starts to go he'll go. He can't step back shoot a baby J, which would be effective even if he got slow. Kobe may have more mileage but he keeps himself in great shape. Eddy on the other hand probably follows the Carl Winslow workout routine.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Agree in principle*



alphaorange said:


> don't really need him and bigs last longer. Curry's game, however, is built on quickness and agility. He will not be at the top of his game at 35......not even close.


i disagree that his game is built on quickness and agility , to me those are just 2 things in his skillset .

on centers as big as himself he uses that primarily on that i agree , but most centers aren't as big and strong as him,(he's listed at 285 but its really kind of obvious he weighs much more than that) he is very adept at skillfully sealing them in the paint now and using his stregnth to keep them there until he recieves an entry pass.

he doesn't really try to outquick a guy like dalembert , or a bogut , even a guy like dwight howard, those guys he went after and tries to bully physically.

what makes him a special talent is that he has the quickness and agility of a much smaller man while still being a very big and strong 300+ pound player in the nba.

in the end if he is able harness that, that will make him special player instead of a very good one .

its the same with shaq, he is right now very good after 15 years in the league , but he's not special anymore because he doesn't have the quickness , leaping ability and agility he came into the league with , but he is still the strongest guy in the league , and strength never leaves as long as you work on it.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Kobe wouldn't have to do so much*



knickstorm said:


> Most centers dont last (physically) as long as guards. They may have jobs longer or be able to hang around a team longer but that's only because of the dearth of big men who can play in the NBA.
> 
> Agree with AlphaOrange, Curry needs his agility and quickness to succeed and when that starts to go he'll go.  He can't step back shoot a baby J, which would be effective even if he got slow. Kobe may have more mileage but he keeps himself in great shape. Eddy on the other hand probably follows the Carl Winslow workout routine.


most _good_ centers last well into their mid-late 30's while still being effective, look at mutumbo he's past 40 and could probably still start for some teams...i doubt their are any guards in the league who can boast that.

mourning and shaq are 37 and 35 respectively...where are the very good guards from their draft now?

sprewell, jim jackson, doug christie? ...the only other players from that draft still playing are big men PJ brown and robert horry .


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

lol at kobe not being worth eddy curry. in msg. isiah may want to talk to ownership about that one.


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

*Re: Kobe wouldn't have to do so much*



Da Grinch said:


> most _good_ centers last well into their mid-late 30's while still being effective, look at mutumbo he's past 40 and could probably still start for some teams...i doubt their are any guards in the league who can boast that.
> 
> mourning and shaq are 37 and 35 respectively...where are the very good guards from their draft now?
> 
> sprewell, jim jackson, doug christie? ...the only other players from that draft still playing are big men PJ brown and robert horry .


I said they dont last as long physically, not that they dont play longer. 

most good centers? yea for every good center you have 4-5 good guards. Mourning keeps himself in ridiculous shape, plus he took time off after the kidney problem and Shaq barely played cuz his big toe was bothering him.

Sprewell's not playing by choice. I dont think Jim Jackson's retired. ANd there's no way you consider those players very good guards.

Like i said, they're still playing not becuase big men are in better shape physically but because big men in general suck.

Back on the topic of eddy curry, if he had the alonzo fitness work ethic, i wouldnt worry. If he had better fundamentals so that he doesnt rely so much on his physical prowess i wouldnt worry, but he doesnt. Why is Mutombo effective? is he in better physical condition than a sprewell or jackson?? is he more agile, quicker, athletic, for his position?? No mutombo is effective cause he has the blocking/rebounding instincts and fundamentals. Eddy doesnt have that at this point.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Not to mention that Shaq, Mourning and..*

Deke are effective defensively and from a rebounding standpoint. All three are still far better than curry will EVER be at these. Shaq is more refined offensively than he was as a younger guy, but he was never really a good offensive player as far as skills go. He was a bulldozer who got away with it.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Kobe wouldn't have to do so much*



knickstorm said:


> I said they dont last as long physically, not that they dont play longer.
> 
> most good centers? yea for every good center you have 4-5 good guards. Mourning keeps himself in ridiculous shape, plus he took time off after the kidney problem and Shaq barely played cuz his big toe was bothering him.
> 
> ...


last longer , vs. their pyhsical gifts ...well i think its obvious the guys who played longer kept some of their gifts while the guards forced out the game early lost theirs, leaping ability , quickness, speed and flexibity leave players well before their strength, height does and thats something centers still have long after their days of playing are over as long as they work out , 

the nets tried to get wilt chaimberlain out of retirement in the 80's at the age of 51...no one will be trying that with MJ in 2014 ,or Kobe in 2029 and that i can say with relative ease.

also,

jim jackson didn't play at all last season only 511 minutes the season before.

he is finished , the same goes for sprewell who did try to get back into the league and his demands kept falling , no one wants a 37 yr. old slasher.

what skills did spree really have at 24 other than pyhsical ones?

not many really but he was a great player and as his physical abilities went down his other skills developed , which happens with most good players...i dont see why curry will be any different .

and Zo cant condition himself like he used to , his body cant take it there is no way he could avg. for a whole season 35 minutes the way curry just did having to overpower people position and being a major part of the offense in fact he hasn't avg. as many minutes as curry just did since 1999, the 98-99 season that was strike shorted, the last time he equalled or bettered curry's minutes per game avg. of 35.2 in a *full* season was 96-97... in which he avg. 35.2 in 66 games , 

in fact he very rarely plays whole seasons without a significant injury , he has only exceeded curry's 2,846 minutes in a season 1 time in his whole career...mostly because he usually doesn't play more than 70 games in a season ,so that well conditioned thing is nice to say but he was never as durable as curry or as prepared as curry for the long haul of the nba as curry even when he was young.

I think Curry is very well condidtioned , he withstands the rigors of the nba season much better , he has only failed to play 70 games in a season once and ultimately it was decided nothing was wrong with him...in mourning's 1st 6 seasons he only played more than 70 games 2 times.

curry didn't have any stamina issues last year.

cuts and definition are nice , but actually being on the court is far more important.


as far as guards vs. center at 35 .

you have shaq, zo , mutumbo , vs eddie jones , sam cassell , lindsay hunter , i think its clear which is better class of player in their advanced age in b-ball.

its just no contest , and its never been one , you can look through the history of the game , you look through the top scorers in nba history of the guys who have the most points , in the top 20 there is 1 guard who played more than 15 years....and like 8 centers who did.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Not to mention that Shaq, Mourning and..*



alphaorange said:


> Deke are effective defensively and from a rebounding standpoint. All three are still far better than curry will EVER be at these. Shaq is more refined offensively than he was as a younger guy, but he was never really a good offensive player as far as skills go. He was a bulldozer who got away with it.


i'm not denying that at all, but a good scoring center will stay one for quite some time , Kareem skyhooked his way til 42 and he pretty much stopped defending and rebounding or even trying to make an effort to even in the fast paced 80's i think he avg. less than 7 boards a game over his last 6 seasons despite the fact he was a starter pretty much the whole time if the entire time.

curry is always going to be a widebody with a 7'6 wingspan so that jumphook will be a very good weapon for a very long time.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

he's not in the same stratosphere as a player as kobe though, and his upside is shrinking year by year. it makes the knicks better as a team for at least 5 years, it makes them more marketable, more entertaining. kobe for eddy curry is a lopsided deal in the knicks favor. for isiah to take him off the table is saying something. something not good.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Kobe wouldn't have to do so much*



alphaorange said:


> if the Knicks traded Curry. There would be plenty of other guys to pick up the slack. He would be more able to pick his spots and it would extend his career. Curry will be 25 in the beginning of the season, which will be his seventh. His wheels will also wear out sooner than most because of the miles. No way he stays on top of his game until he is 35. That is wishful thinking. He may outlast Kobe, but who cares? We would still have younger guys in their primes plus a huge contract coming off the books in Kobe. Not to mention a couple of titles. What projections are you talking about?
> 
> You don't need to have your center be top 5. You have the #1 guy with Kobe, a solid #2 in Marbury, Qrich and Frye are both capable offensive options, and Lee is the perfect role player. Could be a stronger shot blocking team, but no real weakness. A contender for the next 5 years.
> 
> Lets see your projected team post trade.


If the Knicks traded for Kobe and kept Curry, the other guys on the team wouldn't have to pick up much of any slack. Ultimately, teams win and that has been a motto that I have stuck to. Kobe and Curry together make a team much more effective as a whole because of the conflicts they present to an opponent. In that situation, you don't need another big star to give up good numbers; you'd just need guys to come in and do their specific task around Kobe and Curry. This blueprint is one that most successful teams have followed.

As for Curry about to slow down, that is the most ridiculous claim I ever heard. The guy is 24 and although he's been in the league 7 years, he has the body of a 24 year old. That means everything is still working in tip top shape. Why would he start breaking down anytime soon? His weight has never hindered him from playing games like Shaq and Shaq is still 35 and still productive. The beauty of having a guy with Curry's skill set is the fact that no matter how old they get, they still can be effective down the road because their skill and physical gifts never really eroded (strength). Talented big men in general stay in the league longer because of that and always seem to have a role. I doubt it will be any different for Curry.

As for my proposed trade, you'll see it in a minute in a different thread labeled "Potential Kobe Trade Blueprint."


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Da Grinch said:


> the thing is this .
> 
> kobe has been in the league 11 years now , its hard to imagine him as a guard(on both sides of the ball) playing at this level for more than 3 years in fact there were signs this past season he is slipping defensively...as a scorer Kobe is awesome , but I am not sure that I would trade a 24 year old center whose best years are still in front of him and will likely be a 20 point a game scorer with a very high FG% for the next 10 years for a guard who will be awesome for a few more years but then probably not so much.
> 
> outside of curry no one else projects to be a top 5 player at their position from here on so they are on the table...and they should be , curry is the only exception and thats how its supposed to be , no one wants to do a richmond-webber .


I'm with you on not trading Curry in any deal but I'm not so with you about what you think about Kobe. I think him slowed down still is one of the better players in the league and still an all-star. Even though he's a win now player, I could see him being a big performer down the low like how Jordan was. This is why I'm not opposed to gutting the team for him. He'd offer us enough years in my opinion to properly retool this team once that time comes.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Wrong.....*

#1) Kobe now and Curry < Kobe with Shaq and they had a better supporting cast, and they ultimately failed.

#2) Jordan was not a "force" down low. He made his money with the mid range fade-away. His in-traffic finishes were spectacular but not rule of thumb. FTs and fade-aways, my friend.

#3) Kobe and Curry are a 50 win second round exit if they gut the young guys.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

TwinkieFoot said:


> I'm with you on not trading Curry in any deal but I'm not so with you about what you think about Kobe. I think him slowed down still is one of the better players in the league and still an all-star. Even though he's a win now player, I could see him being a big performer down the low like how Jordan was. This is why I'm not opposed to gutting the team for him. He'd offer us enough years in my opinion to properly retool this team once that time comes.


i dont think great 2 guards and great centers are equal.

if you have a franchise center and little else its still a virtual guarentee you will still make the playoff, in fact it doesn't even have to be a center even an exceptional low post pf like a duncan or karl malone are a lock for the playoffs.

kobe is not , his team won 33 games in 2005-06

garnett won 33 games this past season .

how many times did a ewing led team win less than 40 or didn't make the playoffs ?

or olajuwon , or a david robinson or a shaq led team
granted curry is none of them but he can become a franchise center in his prime and pretty much be a lock for 40 or so games a season with a playoff run and the ability for far more ....great players at other positions can give you nothing close to that .

T-mac was once the star of a 21 win team.

if this were a discussion of curry at 24 and a younger Kobe thats one thing , but to rebuild around kobe with no cap space and a team where most of its young real assets were sent for kobe, without a guy like Curry on the roster with him is a disaster waiting to happen in the short and long term.

its not that i dont think kobe is great or a special player , but to rebuild around him at this juncture of his career is way too risky if you send curry for him .

i see the knicks near future like this

the knicks were in the top 10 in offensive efficiency in early march and rising until the injuries hit ....they ultimately finished 17th .

after curry's resurgence in late nov. and marbury's resurgence in december the team's overall offense was very good , they essentially became a bottom 3rd offensive team in the league to a top 3rd offensive team in 3 months time once they all jelled around curry crawford and marbury .

most likely they will be top 5 this season making them an elite offensive team with or without Kobe , that alone will probably get them in the playoffs at a decent seed.

the top 5 offensive teams in the league last year avg. 53.6 wins last season and all of the teams in the top 10 made the playoffs , the top 5 defensive teams avg 55.2 wins last season and 8 of the top 10 made the playoffs including the top 6 defensive teams in the league.

having an identity and excelling at one side of the court is a pretty good indicator of success and the knicks are a team that when healthy do excel on offense.

so as they are building around curry i really dont see a dire need for kobe although he is a clearly exceptional player , but as a guard despite the hyperbole he cant do it by himself and if there isn't enough of a team surrounding him its means rebuilding around a guard in his 30's , that is a recipe for trouble.

To me the best idea is simply to fortify the 4 spot and continue building around Curry , let one of the youngest teams in the nba grow and if there is an opportunity for a star w/o gutting the team, you take it .

its always best to deal from positions of strength.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Compare apples to apples*

The bigs you mentioned are ALL complete players who had much more impact on a game other than points scored. ALL were great rebounders and shot blockers, so they could dominate a game on many levels. Naturally this would lead to more wins than a guard could do. Comparison is invalid right from the premise. Comparing Curry to these guys is also crazy. He is better than all but Shaq down low but pails to all but Shaq in offensive versatility. He does not board well and is one of the worst defensive centers to pass through the league in a while. He is the worst passer of the group, which is not easy since Ew wasn't exactly Nash. He is also very TO prone. Curry will NEVER be in the class of those guys so let it go.

Also, offensive efficiency is what matters, not points scored. They scored more because they gave up more. Take a look at efficiency. If they are top ten, I'll be shocked. They were far too careless with the ball.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Compare apples to apples*



alphaorange said:


> The bigs you mentioned are ALL complete players who had much more impact on a game other than points scored. ALL were great rebounders and shot blockers, so they could dominate a game on many levels. Naturally this would lead to more wins than a guard could do. Comparison is invalid right from the premise. Comparing Curry to these guys is also crazy. He is better than all but Shaq down low but pails to all but Shaq in offensive versatility. He does not board well and is one of the worst defensive centers to pass through the league in a while. He is the worst passer of the group, which is not easy since Ew wasn't exactly Nash. He is also very TO prone. Curry will NEVER be in the class of those guys so let it go.
> 
> Also, offensive efficiency is what matters, not points scored. They scored more because they gave up more. Take a look at efficiency. If they are top ten, I'll be shocked. They were far too careless with the ball.


you shouldn't be arrogant in your post when you dont read mine all that well.

i said curry isn't any of those guys but he can grow into franchise center and have that kind of impact.

carelessness with the ball is funny to me , most people who watch curry play know he gets most of his turnovers from 3 sec. violations and offensive fouls...which i would guess account for at least 2 turnovers per game.

he rarely passes , so of course he rarely makes bad passes.

82games.com says he only made 48 passing turnovers all season. its not really an issue of his ability , which i do consider poor passingwise , its moreso he really doesn't look to pass at all, that comes with, maturity, time on the court as a focal point and stability , as he runs an offensive sys. for more than a year , he has still never had a head coach for 2 full seasons which means his offensive growth as far as awareness has been severly hampered as well as what he's been asked to do as a player.

by the end of last season he was starting to hit cutters , showing he is now at least beginning to look for people to keep defenses guessing.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

also on offensive efficiency .

it really doesn't matter what you do on defense for the most part .

teams with fast tempos and slow ones were in the top 5 as well as good and not so good defensive teams.

and the knicks counteract their high turnovers with good rebounding especially on the offensive boards, getting to the line , when they are clicking they are very hard to stop because they have quite a few weapons.


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

*Re: Compare apples to apples*



Da Grinch said:


> you shouldn't be arrogant in your post when you dont read mine all that well.
> 
> i said curry isn't any of those guys but he can grow into franchise center and have that kind of impact.
> 
> ...


I still don't see how Curry can grow into a franchise center and have the impact those previously mentioned did. There's just too much he has to improve on. Let's throw out the shaq led team because every shaq led team had a stud ala penny, kobe, wade. All i know if when Kobe wasnt kobe, the Shaq led team aint win anything. Robinson, Olajuwon, Ewing were all defensive monsters. You can win with them because they can do so much on their own. THey make everyone better. If your man drives by you, they're there to back you up. No defenders are looking to pass cause Eddy Curry's in their way. I dont think they ever will. Eddy also needs to improve with how he deals with double teams.The aforementioned players could do that.

Curry on an elite team has to play second fiddle. Yes the knicks are a very good rebounding team but that has little to do with curry. We saw once david lee went out last year with that hamstring that never healed that the knicks were frequently losing games on the rebounding end.

Who knows you may be right, but in order to impact the game to a point where the knicks can be playoff contenders every year solely based on his talents, edddy curry has a loooonnngg way to go.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Grinch....*

You need to read better as well. I said he wasn't as good as those guys.....and NEVER would be. Only a fool would think he would ever end up in their class. As far as efficiency goes, you're right, pace doesn't have much to do with it. It's about how many points you score per offensive possession. If I'm not mistaken, your post doesn't address that at all. Regarding Eddy's TOs...who cares how he gets them or what they are. The end result is the same and until he stops getting them, what I said is true. Being a bad passer does not, in fact, just mean the ball is errant every time it is passed. It also means that a guy is incapable of making a pass when he should. I never said that it was only Curry that was careless with the ball. In fact, I never associated that with him specifically at all. I said THEY, as in the Knick team. Since Curry averaged .8 assists per game, I would hardly celebrate his ability to hit the cutter. 

You went off on everything I wrote but didn't address any off the points I made. You need to read better. I know Curry is your boy (and Twinks), but both of you gush about what he may become. I prefer to live in the present and discuss what he is. We can debate the future of Curry, if you wish, but that would be a waste of time since there is nothing but hypotheticals. 

'Storm is right. Curry will need to be a second fiddle if the team he is on is to be a contender. It is the same as I've said all along. There will also need to be solid pieces surrounding him and whoever is #1.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Grinch....*



alphaorange said:


> You need to read better as well. I said he wasn't as good as those guys.....and NEVER would be. Only a fool would think he would ever end up in their class. As far as efficiency goes, you're right, pace doesn't have much to do with it. It's about how many points you score per offensive possession. If I'm not mistaken, your post doesn't address that at all. Regarding Eddy's TOs...who cares how he gets them or what they are. The end result is the same and until he stops getting them, what I said is true. Being a bad passer does not, in fact, just mean the ball is errant every time it is passed. It also means that a guy is incapable of making a pass when he should. I never said that it was only Curry that was careless with the ball. In fact, I never associated that with him specifically at all. I said THEY, as in the Knick team. Since Curry averaged .8 assists per game, I would hardly celebrate his ability to hit the cutter.
> 
> You went off on everything I wrote but didn't address any off the points I made. You need to read better. I know Curry is your boy (and Twinks), but both of you gush about what he may become. I prefer to live in the present and discuss what he is. We can debate the future of Curry, if you wish, but that would be a waste of time since there is nothing but hypotheticals.
> 
> 'Storm is right. Curry will need to be a second fiddle if the team he is on is to be a contender. It is the same as I've said all along. There will also need to be solid pieces surrounding him and whoever is #1.


actually i wrote this right after that in post 34.



> also on offensive efficiency .
> 
> it really doesn't matter what you do on defense for the most part .
> 
> ...


i guessed you missed while somehow responding to a portion of it directly above ...my comments about your reading still stands.

and it does matter how you get your turnovers for instance if half of his turnovers were over the back fouls it wouldn't automatically be bad thing in spite of the fact he was losing possesions because it means he was actively trying to board in a fashion he doesn't really do now.

players who get a lot those type of turnovers generally get a boatload of off. rebound more than making up for times the ref calls them for overaggression.

3sec. to's are generally caused by your teammates passing up open looks and poor entry passing and recognition, not really a bad thing for eddy to get unless he was just lazily camping in the post , which he doesn't do.

the off. fouls especially the way he was getting them early in the season were bad but part of the price of punding the ball inside against an increasingly flopper league.

almost all the great centers had flaws the opposition could take advantage of.

shaq is maybe the worst defender of the pick and roll ever.

ewing was a poor passer.

david robinson had no post up moves or any kind of real post up game.

and early in his career olajuwon was a horrible leader , maybe the worst of any great player the last 20 years with his constant blaming of his teammates for everything wrong.

in the months of dec., jan., and feb. i bet you would be surprised by how efficient the knicks were


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Wrong again....*

It may help offset their high TO rate, but it does nothing to change their lack of offensive efficiency. As I said, they are a poor offensive team efficiency wise. Lee and Qrich's board work aside, they are NOT a good offensive team. That is what I posted and that is a fact. What you posted is irrelevant as far as opposing my point. Are they, or are they not inefficient?

My reading and comp is just fine. Yours, however, needs work. Your statement about rebounding is somewhat true, but has nothing to do with my post. Just respond to the points.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Compare apples to apples*



knickstorm said:


> I still don't see how Curry can grow into a franchise center and have the impact those previously mentioned did. There's just too much he has to improve on. Let's throw out the shaq led team because every shaq led team had a stud ala penny, kobe, wade. All i know if when Kobe wasnt kobe, the Shaq led team aint win anything. Robinson, Olajuwon, Ewing were all defensive monsters. You can win with them because they can do so much on their own. THey make everyone better. If your man drives by you, they're there to back you up. No defenders are looking to pass cause Eddy Curry's in their way. I dont think they ever will. Eddy also needs to improve with how he deals with double teams.The aforementioned players could do that.
> 
> Curry on an elite team has to play second fiddle. Yes the knicks are a very good rebounding team but that has little to do with curry. We saw once david lee went out last year with that hamstring that never healed that the knicks were frequently losing games on the rebounding end.
> 
> Who knows you may be right, but in order to impact the game to a point where the knicks can be playoff contenders every year solely based on his talents, edddy curry has a loooonnngg way to go.


there are some things you are missing.

for 1 Lee's rebounding wasn't all that important ....they missed his somewhat reluctant jumpshot more than anything else.

the knicks were almost never outrebounded by big margins when lee was out , they were only outrebounded by more than 4 one time from his injury(feb 21 was the beginning of the games he missed) until the end of the season and that was the 1st game he missed...after that basically balkman filled in for him rather nicely...also collins , jeffries and francis are all good rebounders who were players getting time in the last 2 months....in april they outboarded opponents by 8.5 rebounds a game....lee is good but he was absolutely not irreplaceable....the knicks more pressing matters were that while all the guys who got playing time could board none of them were what you would call good shooters when open.

the knicks in their final 26 games were outrebounded 6 times by margins of 1(twice) 2 (twice) 3 (once and 4 (once) while outrebounding opponents by at least 9 8 times 2 of those times by monsterous margins (24 &21)

it would be nice if curry boarded more , very nice but the knick appear to be very capable of dominating the boards with the results he gives now.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Wrong again....*



alphaorange said:


> It may help offset their high TO rate, but it does nothing to change their lack of offensive efficiency. As I said, they are a poor offensive team efficiency wise. Lee and Qrich's board work aside, they are NOT a good offensive team. That is what I posted and that is a fact. What you posted is irrelevant as far as opposing my point. Are they, or are they not inefficient?
> 
> My reading and comp is just fine. Yours, however, needs work. Your statement about rebounding is somewhat true, but has nothing to do with my post. Just respond to the points.


the knicks finished 17th in offensive efficiency , before the injuries hit they were in the top 10 and rising, you can believe what you want to believe but when heathy the knicks are an efficient team on offense.,

also getting to the line is actually the most efficient way to score points , and since i have already mentioned that more than once that the knick get to the line quite a bit i will assume you read it and that the concept is simply over your head.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Wrong.....*



alphaorange said:


> #1) Kobe now and Curry < Kobe with Shaq and they had a better supporting cast, and they ultimately failed.
> 
> #2) Jordan was not a "force" down low. He made his money with the mid range fade-away. His in-traffic finishes were spectacular but not rule of thumb. FTs and fade-aways, my friend.
> 
> #3) Kobe and Curry are a 50 win second round exit if they gut the young guys.


1.) Pure conjecture. Just because they had names attached to their supporting cast, did not make them a real team. Sometimes stars can't play roles just as how some role players can't be a star.

2.) Against guards, Jordan was a pretty good post threat. If you do recall correctly, the Bulls posted him and Pippen (moreso Pippen) many times in the post. It's how they got past the fact that they had no real big men that could score in the paint.

3.) Why the hell does Kobe and Curry have to win a title in the first year? Do you have not have the ability to see long term and down the road in the future? You only need role players around those guys and you can get about two good ones with the MLE.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*More baloney...*

#1)Not conjecture. Fact. If you believe otherwise, you're a fool.

#2)Don't preach to me about MJ. I know how old you are and what you could have seen. I actually watched him. He was not featured in the paint. THAT is also a fact.

#3)I do have vision and I also have a brain. They have to win soon or all bets are off. Kobe is not going to get better, and Curry will get only marginally better. They will not improve personnel because they will not be able to and besides, you do not see players clamoring to play with Kobe. Why is that? This is moot because he will not ever be here., but your remarks are pure fantasy at this time. That is a fact.


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

*Re: Compare apples to apples*



Da Grinch said:


> there are some things you are missing.
> 
> for 1 Lee's rebounding wasn't all that important ....they missed his somewhat reluctant jumpshot more than anything else.
> 
> ...


good points, Yes balkman filled in admirably, but still, Lee gave you a double double off the bench playing 30 min a game. I'm interested if you have any stats as far as how many offensive rebounds the knicks grabbed with lee compared to without lee. And how many offensive boards they gave up with and without lee. Overall rebounding numbers are good, but can be easily skewed. Yes the knicks can totally out rebound a team, but if the other team is making you turn the ball over and is able to put up a lot more shots, they'll miss more allowing for more rebounds, but also take more shots.


----------



## Phyr (Mar 3, 2005)

If the Lakers want Curry, they will have to make concessions. Thats what I read into it. If its true, then Isiah is beginning to form some intelligence.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Compare apples to apples*




knickstorm said:


> good points, Yes balkman filled in admirably, but still, Lee gave you a double double off the bench playing 30 min a game. I'm interested if you have any stats as far as how many offensive rebounds the knicks grabbed with lee compared to without lee. And how many offensive boards they gave up with and without lee. Overall rebounding numbers are good, but can be easily skewed. Yes the knicks can totally out rebound a team, but if the other team is making you turn the ball over and is able to put up a lot more shots, they'll miss more allowing for more rebounds, but also take more shots.


ok i'll answer their rebounding validity like this .

the pace and scoring of games in the last 2 months went down (92.3 points a game in march and april compared to 100 points a game the previous 3 months)), but the rebounding numbers rose slightly in march and were much better in april in pure #s(the knicks grabbed their 2nd most rebounds per game in april at 43.9) and rebounding margin....the knicks did turn the ball over more and shot worse too because for a good portion of the time they had a rookie pg at the helm, but you can just look at the line ups on the floor and see the results from a rebounding prespective they were better at that aspect of the game.

they avg. 11.0 off. rebounds a game in febuary but 12.0 in march and 11.9 in april.

defensive rebounds were 29.4 in feb. 29.4 in march and 32.0 in april.

so its not that the knicks were just grabbing more rebounds in relation to the other team they were grabbing more period.

balkman gave close to the same production that Lee did and 14.1 per 40 min. and 11.8 reb. per 40 minutes in march and april compareed to the season avg. of 14.4 points and 13.9 reb. per 40 min. for lee, it gets closer when you add balkmans pretty good defense an area he is clearly surperior to lee ...but like i said they really didn't need rebounding all that badly they needed to be more effective shooting the ball and dlee was a very efficient scorer and had a good mid-range J.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: More baloney...*



alphaorange said:


> #1)Not conjecture. Fact. If you believe otherwise, you're a fool.
> 
> #2)Don't preach to me about MJ. I know how old you are and what you could have seen. I actually watched him. He was not featured in the paint. THAT is also a fact.
> 
> #3)I do have vision and I also have a brain. They have to win soon or all bets are off. Kobe is not going to get better, and Curry will get only marginally better. They will not improve personnel because they will not be able to and besides, you do not see players clamoring to play with Kobe. Why is that? This is moot because he will not ever be here., but your remarks are pure fantasy at this time. That is a fact.


actaully MJ was featured in the high post in the triangle in their 2nd 3 peat quite abit 

the high post is considered the paint too in case you didn't know.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Bull****...*

Keep reaching. You couldn't be more wrong. The triangle is actually a THREE post offense...and the word "post" hast nothing to do where they are...only that there are three starting positions. BTW, NONE of them are close to the paint, except for the "low" post. If by high post you mean top of the circle, you are still wrong as that is not considered the paint area by anyone other than you.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Bull****...*



alphaorange said:


> Keep reaching. You couldn't be more wrong. The triangle is actually a THREE post offense...and the word "post" hast nothing to do where they are...only that there are three starting positions. BTW, NONE of them are close to the paint, except for the "low" post. If by high post you mean top of the circle, you are still wrong as that is not considered the paint area by anyone other than you.


who ever said i thought it did 

all i said was they featured MJ prominently in the high post in the triangle in the 2nd three-peat, you need phonics and some glasses, the paint extends from the hoop 15 ft. and its 12 ft. wide there is alot of real estate on the court that falls under the designation of "the paint"

the triangle isn't anything more than a motion offense designed to provide spacing for all 5 players....the individual plays are decided by the coaching staff and team personel. they decided to put him there and he delivered. the triangle offense has dozens of plays how in the world can you say with any kind of faith that you know that you know that every single one of them has no spot in the high post for a player to operate.

when in fact almost all of them do, in the 1st 3 peat it was mostly Ho. grant and pippen in that area...occasionally bill cartwright.

just like the corner was usually by the 3 point line was usually an area for the pg to get his shots off.

in the 2nd threepeat it was mostly jordan there and sometimes a big man shooter like bill wennington

and in the 2nd threepeat they put MJ in the high post alot because he was .
1. the teams's best post player, he was very physical and was excellent at getting position, when needed...also from a speed aspect he was slowing down.
2. its best scorer 
3. Mj was no longer the energizer bunny he was in the 1st 3 peat, it also allowed him a way to be a focal point without expending as much energy and took advantage of the fact that he was much stronger than most 2 guards.

if you have any proof that backs you up i am more than willing to hear it.

perhaps you should buy tex winters book on the triangle , it may fix some of your misconceptions.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Let me help you*

#1) The high post in the triangle is around the 3pt line. This is not considered paint, for all you beginners. The triangle focuses on only one "paint area" post.

#2) http://espn.go.com/ncb/2003/0128/1499926.html


#3) As usual, your full of crap. Don't bother going further, there is nothing more to say about this. You'd be better served trying to learn rather than just insulting. There are plenty of people that know more about this than you. I might be one of them.


----------



## CocaineisaHelluvaDrug (Aug 24, 2006)

settle down fellas,its all opinions


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*I'm cool with the opinions...*

I just get bothered by twisted logic and incomplete reasoning. We're intelligent folks here but how we can look at the same numbers and draw such opposing conclusions boggles my mind. I suppose thats why they call us FANaticS.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Let me help you*



alphaorange said:


> #1) The high post in the triangle is around the 3pt line. This is not considered paint, for all you beginners. The triangle focuses on only one "paint area" post.
> 
> #2) http://espn.go.com/ncb/2003/0128/1499926.html
> 
> ...



what does your article say about anything you have been beating your chest about?

the top of the key is called the top of the key ...not the high post .

that whole article didn't even mention the high post once.

as usual you rant and give nothing , besides the whole thing is written by fran fraschilla.

maybe you should use a more credible source ....i dunno like tex winter and phil jackson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MGu7zB_6XU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUSyMjv60Qk&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYxwxurwp14&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axHlE7wMr98&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDt_wbjF-2E&mode=related&search=

and on that note this this off topic diversion ends.


----------

