# If you were Zeke what would you do?



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Apparently he wont get swift ...the rockets have the inside track.

the kwame for Q looks iffy ...unless zeke adds at least a pick (he cant add a player for at least another month and kwame will be gone by then) apparently the wizards favor trading kwame for caron butler...who to me isn't a true 2 guard at all, more of a really small small forward.

jerome james is gettable for the MLE as is steven hunter ...

antione walker seems in play for a sign and trade.

bonzi could be available in a couple of weeks , the grizzlies have until 7/23 to pick up his option or set him free as a free agent. 

there are others i am sure that are available and would fit .

if you were zeke at this current time , what would you do?


----------



## Jermaniac Fan (Jul 27, 2003)

I would sign Jerome James.. NOT going to happen because he isn't undersized


----------



## lafever8 (Jun 26, 2005)

i would resign and go home and see how good of a job the gm would do.


----------



## ERAFF (Jun 27, 2005)

Steven Hunter is so good that Phoenix identified their biggest need as a "Large Companion" for Amare. He's young and he's big---he hasn't played real minutes.

Jerome James? He's played about 15 minutes per, but not every night.

I certainly would sign Hunter Before JJ, if I would sign EITHER.

How about Sweetney for Mark Blount?


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

if we trade sweetney, we gotta trade for someone around his age,not someone round 30. we need to get younger, not older. were rebuilding


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

OK......

Kwame,James and Hunter...They all Suck,but at least Hunter makes an effort and works his butt off at Grovers in the off season..And hes 23 and cheap....

If the Wiz will trade for Q straight up,so be it....

Its a sad situation when 6'8" fat Sweetney is a better rebounder and scorer than Mr potential,Kwame....

How about we actually get some guys with the fukking will to win and have some clue as to what dedication and desire means.....


----------



## ERAFF (Jun 27, 2005)

By the Way---Reaching and overpaying for guys is called DESPERATION. Granted, some people think Kwame has gigantic upside---realize that his "problem" isn't the Same as Jermaine O'Neal had, or perhaps the same as Darko---stuck behind very good players. Kwame's team has had a Vacuum of need at the 5 spot---he's just plain damned UNWILLING TO BE A STAR!!!! That's very deep, and seldom changeable. Kwame IS what Kwame has been! Guy's like Isiah(with God Complexes) think they can be personal Saviors---they can't!


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Whatever Kwame is..*

he is also VERY young. TT was 27 and people were saying how he could change. This is a KID and folks say he's washed up? Maybe, but he has a chance to change and THAT is why we like him.

If you like Blount, that says it all. Check his numbers.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> if you were zeke at this current time , what would you do?


Try my best to trade Marbury for picks and expiring contracts and rebuild the right way, through picks and free agency.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

son of oakley said:


> Try my best to trade Marbury for picks and expiring contracts and rebuild the right way, through picks and free agency.


Oak,i would like to move marbury as well,but its not going to happen..i would happily settle for a coach who has the authority and onions to play the best player for the system te coach chooses.....

If that means Marbury at the 2,or even the bench,then so be it.....


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

The question should be "what would you do if you were the owner?" I forget his name. Isiah and those before him have a directive. "Get this team in the playoffs!" If you don't you job is on the line. The NYK GM never gets the chance to build properly like Denver or Phx. 

I would just unload all I could, pick up young cheap hustlers like Chicago and do a whole lot of waiting. If you unload Houston, His contract still kills your cap, as does Taylor, Marbury, Crawford, Q......


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

the 1st thing i'd do is hire larry brown if he becomes available after today.

if not the herb and paul coaching duo suits me fine.

i'd just ask that they at least try the pick and roll with TT for a solid month and see if it works. With his build and stregnth he's a perfect picksetter and his jumpshot extends out past 3 point range with over 40% accuracy out there...much better than kurt's accuarcy from 2 when you account for the extra point from 3.

also i'd send Q to wash. with the spurs pick next year if needed for kwame , i like the idea of keeping a 7 ft 270 pounder and combining him with sweetney and frye , all 3 do things the other 2 dont and defensively i think with some chemistry and time can be a dominant trio . Ouside of shaq and maybe yao i cant see too many big men who are so big strong or quick that they cant handle them . a big difference from last year when the really athletic ones gave the knicks fits.

also i'd hold onto penny ...but i wouldn't play him unless forced to , if i could i'd leave him in a gym somewhere and tell him just not to hurt himself. by december there will be a team who will take himas they enter tank mode.

and i'd keep TT if he can play again like he was at the end of the season...but resign him for something reasonable..if not he goes like penny .


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Agree with most...*

But give it up on TT....he has never put a season together. He is also , oh, so soft. Your stat about the % is also misleading. Yes from a point scenario it makes sense but counting long reboounds that turn ito breaks for the other team and little droughts that can change momentum, that is a bad way to think. Live by the 3...die by the 3.


----------



## Biggestfanoftheknicks (Apr 14, 2005)

Blow this team the hell up trading everything over than 25. Acquire Kwame, punch Tim Thomas, send Penny to toronto for being a punk, I would attack and prey upon the rosters of Orlando, Atlanta, and Boston if possible.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Biggestfanoftheknicks said:


> Blow this team the hell up trading everything over than 25. Acquire Kwame, punch Tim Thomas, send Penny to toronto for being a punk, I would attack and prey upon the rosters of Orlando, Atlanta, and Boston if possible.


lay off the video games BFK...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Agree with most...*



alphadog said:


> But give it up on TT....he has never put a season together. He is also , oh, so soft. Your stat about the % is also misleading. Yes from a point scenario it makes sense but counting long reboounds that turn ito breaks for the other team and little droughts that can change momentum, that is a bad way to think. Live by the 3...die by the 3.


do you honestly think a shot from 22 feet is so different from an 18 foot shot in an offensive set?

you only die by the 3 when it doesn't go in...same with a long 2


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

4 feet is a pretty big difference. i can even nail 18 footers with the best of them...but the nba three is pretty damn far. its just a higher percentage shot.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Uh...*

Its actually 23'9 from most places on the court. It is not a matter of just linear distance. The longer the shot, the higher the arc...the higher the arc, the more impact on the miss. Thus, longer rebounds. Elementary, my dear dg. Basic physics. Be cool...stay in school.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Agree with most...*



disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> do you honestly think a shot from 22 feet is so different from an 18 foot shot in an offensive set?
> 
> you only die by the 3 when it doesn't go in...same with a long 2


you only die by the 3 when your 3pt shootin % is 33% less than your 2 pt shooting %..If its better than that,hoist as many as you can


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

PennyHardaway said:


> 4 feet is a pretty big difference. i can even nail 18 footers with the best of them...but the nba three is pretty damn far. its just a higher percentage shot.


i wasn't really referring to the difficulty of the shot as much as i was posting about how hard the ball comes off the rim.

according to alphadog the difference would have to be significant because they would be running the ball back on the knicks.

i tend to disagree on that.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> i wasn't really referring to the difficulty of the shot as much as i was posting about how hard the ball comes off the rim.
> 
> according to alphadog the difference would have to be significant because they would be running the ball back on the knicks.
> 
> i tend to disagree on that.


you could counter by saying the 3 pt shooter is already back on D...

but hes dead right otherwise

I think what alfa is saying is the further the shot,the greater the trajectory..hence the greater the impact upon the ball striking the rim..its that 32ft/per second per second thing....

also thinkabout the initial force needed to generate a shot from 30 feet out vs 2 feet out..its much greater,hence greater impact and longer rebounds

you could counter by saying the longer the rebound the less important boxing out is negating the defensive teams positinong advantage


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Har har, truth*

Back on D? The Knicks? Stop it...I'm gonna pisss myself again. And as you know, my young Jedi, boxing out isn't just for the freaks inside...its a game everyone can (and should) play.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Har har, truth*



alphadog said:


> Back on D? The Knicks? Stop it...I'm gonna pisss myself again. And as you know, my young Jedi, boxing out isn't just for the freaks inside...its a game everyone can (and should) play.


Alfa,bark less..think more..

We are involved in a hypothetical situation..If a player takes a shot from 30 feet out,by very definition he is 30 feet closer (back on D)to the opponents rim than if he threw the ball down..its not a hard concept...

Once again Alfa,please read,think then bark...If your point of LONG rebounds from shots beyond the arc is true,than boxing out under the boards is far less important as you stated. There is a reason almost all players rebound better on the defensive end than the offensive.Long rebounds are probably the exception to the rule.Think of when a team is down by three and at the foul line with 4 seconds less.They purposely miss hoping for a long or awkward rebound...Threes are similar in that sense as you stated.
If you believe that EVERYONE should box out,that means nobody will release on the shot so shots taken outside the arc will have no detrimental impact regarding fast breaks...

I know you like to be arumentative for the sake of it,so i will happily oblige you and lead you from the dark side..


----------



## ERAFF (Jun 27, 2005)

*Re: Agree with most...*



truth said:


> you only die by the 3 when your 3pt shootin % is 33% less than your 2 pt shooting %..If its better than that,hoist as many as you can


Only sort of true----teams that "hoist" 3's usually do that because they can't do anything else...they're being out played. Working the ball and getting better shots also puts you in a better position for secoend chance points because it means that you have outnumbered the defense somewhere.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Come on Truth..*

Of course you can't box out a man who isn't there...that kinda goes without saying. It also follows that if a defender going to offense can beat you down court from a 10 footer, he can also beat you down court after you lob a 30 footer and clang(we are, after all, talking about you...not me). It isn't the distance...it's the release and committment to d that determines the outcome. Woofin' and thinkin', young Luke.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Come on Truth..*



alphadog said:


> Of course you can't box out a man who isn't there...that kinda goes without saying. It also follows that if a defender going to offense can beat you down court from a 10 footer, he can also beat you down court after you lob a 30 footer and clang(we are, after all, talking about you...not me). It isn't the distance...it's the release and committment to d that determines the outcome. Woofin' and thinkin', young Luke.


the knicks aren't a bad transition team. their main defensive problems were in the halfcourt where their lack of size and intimidation were problematic.

the knick had and have their share of defensive hustlers who will always make it back downcourt to play defense, in addition to the guard who go back automatically on a shot attempt(which actually may change with Q, he actually crashes the boards) but last season crawford and marbury always got back on defense and avoided offensive rebounding like it was a STD with a guy like rose, ariza or JYD hustling back to supliment them .


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Come on Truth..*



alphadog said:


> Of course you can't box out a man who isn't there...that kinda goes without saying. It also follows that if a defender going to offense can beat you down court from a 10 footer, he can also beat you down court after you lob a 30 footer and clang(we are, after all, talking about you...not me). It isn't the distance...it's the release and committment to d that determines the outcome. Woofin' and thinkin', young Luke.


DarthDog,you better be nice to me as I am the only one who understands your madness


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Agree with most...*



ERAFF said:


> Only sort of true----teams that "hoist" 3's usually do that because they can't do anything else...they're being out played. Working the ball and getting better shots also puts you in a better position for secoend chance points because it means that you have outnumbered the defense somewhere.


Like the Phoenix Suns???


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Agree with most...*



truth said:


> Like the Phoenix Suns???



or the sonics.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Jermaniac Fan said:


> I would sign Jerome James.. NOT going to happen because he isn't undersized


Nice call :biggrin:


----------

