# The new Knicks



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Do we really need all these overpriced players like Starbury,TT,KT,Penny,Deke,H20 and Shandon???:no: 

I dont think so when you have Sweetny,Demarr,Frank Williams,Naz and Moochie:yes: 

The future looks bright!!


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> Do we really need all these overpriced players like Starbury,TT,KT,Penny,Deke,H20 and Shandon???:no:
> 
> I dont think so when you have Sweetny,Demarr,Frank Williams,Naz and Moochie:yes:
> ...


Heh I don't think you need most of that first group with their current contracts even if you didn't have any of the second group.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> Heh I don't think you need most of that first group with their current contracts even if you didn't have any of the second group


lol..thats pretty funny...and true....


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

Watching these guys play, you wonder why these guys have been getting splinters all year warming the bench.


----------



## Max Payne (Mar 2, 2004)

It's moments like these that make me feel proud that for the last 14 years I've supported the Knicks with a passion. Go get 'em boys !


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> Watching these guys play, you wonder why these guys have been getting splinters all year warming the bench.


its exactly why layden and chaney are gone...It made no sense..You play eisly,ward,sppon and shandon???????

and you are playing .375 ball????

Say what you want about Isiah,but hes a snart guy...He brought in marbury and TT,but he also found DJ and kept sweetney and williams......this is the best young talent the knicks have had in a LONG time....


----------



## marcus_camby (Feb 28, 2004)

we have a good team, and this season counts to remove the team, and create a new team.
next year is really important, to be 4th or 5th in east, else, next season will be a bad season


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

If everyone is healthy next year and we end up in 4th or 5th, then we are so screwed. This team will not get a helluva lot better. TT is what he is..H2O is on the slow slide down, Marbury is at his prime, Nazr is Nazr, Sweetney will improve but KT, Deke, Anderson, and Mookie have peaked. I like DJ but I don't believe he will be anything other than a situational player on a good team.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Man,you guys are like women,no offense to any females..Which is it??

Under layden we are playing .375 ball,havent made the playoffs in 3 years and you dont say boo


This year with a new coach,new players,injuries we make the seventh seed 

Maybe next year we get the 4 or 5 seed,and you are saying we are screwed????

Hello???? Have you looked at our payroll???What are you expecting???What were our options??

How about some constructive critisism,and dont tell me we should have played the rooks and tanked the season....


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

This is what I love too truth, that if Isiah doesn't win a championship he failed. As if we were so on the brink of it, with our feet stuck in the lottery, with our payroll busting through the ceiling, before big bad Isiah threw it all away.

Curse you Isiah, I know we were playing .333 ball, but we were so damn close to winning it all!!!!


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Oak,its amazing..Its OK for layden to play sub .400 ball,but if IT doesnt win it all,he has failed......

They do this with IT,TT,marbury and Naz is the latest....KVH has been injured,lost his spot to Mason and the critics dont say a word about it...If TT has one off night,the guys go off...

Lampe has one game where he scores 15 in garbage time,and the marbury deal was the worst ever..

Now Naz = Doleac....Yeah,Doleac might get you 18 rebounds if you summed his weekly totals...

And lets not forger DJ...Hes a lottery bust who cant play SG or SF..But Shandon should be an All star..Cause Layden says so....

Notice how most of these snipers never say anything that coud stick??They are Teflon....Gimme a break


----------



## Tapseer (Jun 13, 2002)

LOL This is my biggest complaint. Layden does nothing for 3 years, IT comes in makes more moves in 3 months than Layden did in the above mentioned 3 years, and now IT has screwed up the Knicks for all time...LMMFAO. The hypocracy of some of these posters knows no end. I'm watching the Phx game right now. I do hope I catch a glimpse of Lampe, but I guess I shouldn't hold my breath. Hey, Antonio Mcdyess is playing right now and he has a total of 4 pts in the game with 10 minutes left in the 3rd Qtr. I really should hold my breath for the 'Dyess explosion. Mcdyess, Lampe and Vujanic leading Phx to the 2004 NBA playoffs in the west clinching the 8th spot in front of Denver...I really should stop drinking when posting... Jack and Coke that's what's up...


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Mcdyess, Lampe and Vujanic leading Phx to the 2004 NBA playoffs in the west clinching the 8th spot in front of Denver...


Yes, I'm sure that supporting cast could NEVER help Marion, Amare, and Joe Johnson get to the playoffs. Something a certain superstar struggled to do. It should be noted that the Suns are no worse since trading Marbury.


----------



## Tapseer (Jun 13, 2002)

Well, PHX has just lost another heart breaker 98 - 96 helping the LA Clippers stop a 13 game losing streak. The stat line is as follows...Mcdyess 33 mins. 6 pts. Lampe 2 mins. 0 pts. Eisly 0 mins. 0 pts. obviously a coaches decision and Vujanic 0 p mins. 0 pts obviously HIS decision not to play HERE PERIOD. Marbury and the Knicks are in the playoffs after being 8 games under .500 and no playoff hope before he got here. Go figure.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

What is with you guys? Because some of us think IT hasn't really made the team or the future any better, that  means we liked Layden? Go back and check my posts..I have ALWAYS been a proponent of starting over. My wish list included changes from top (ownership) to the roster. All I have ever heard from you guys is assumptions and suppositions. The facts are these: the Marbury trade was being worked on before IT and it has been confirmed in the papers with sources more in the know that you and I claiming it was more a matter of timing than any specific offer that made it happen. I believe that the team would have been just as good if not better at that point if we had changed only the coach. DJ was likely to sign because of H2o's injury and Baker always wanted to be a KNick. Does Layden sign him? Maybe not but has he really made a difference? Not so much. So we are in the playoffs..I see us as a one and done. Without telling me how we are going to pull off a miracle trade and sign for a real stud(THAT would change my opinion), how are we going to improve enough to overtake the young and talented teams ahead of us?...who are still improving, btw. OK, Truth, Tapseer, et al, so we weren't on the cusp before. We certainly are no closer to the finals that we were (unless you are talking "potential"...now its my turn to rotflmao)...AND we have slipped further into salary cap hell and have given up some youth and 2 future #1's. Oh yeah..the future is SO bright. Now we can't even blow up the team if we end up being mediocre..we have too many unwanteds.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

I guess the bottom line is this: I want everything to point toward a championship team, not a middle of the pack playoff team. We just have to agree to disagree, I guess. I will be unhappy until I see the framework in place. Alot of you look at every bright spot and think we have turned the corner. Sometimes that shiny piece of silver is just a Hershey's kiss wrapper, not a silver mine.


----------



## dcrono3 (Jan 6, 2004)

Alpha, The problem we have is that the future didn't look to have any hersey wrappers, let alone silver mines, until IT came. Based on Layden's track record, he probably would have traded this draft pick to get another old star. And since you said the Marbury trade was already in the works with Layden, then we can't really blame IT for the trade right? Layden would have traded away our youth too.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Based on Layden's track record, he probably would have traded this draft pick to get another old star.


Excuse me, but IT just did that. He traded draft picks for an old star.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> Excuse me, but IT just did that. He traded draft picks for an old star.


Rashidi,please tell me you arent pretending that Marbury is old...You must be joking....

And what draft pick did we give up???We are in the playoffs,the pick is not a high pick....Get real

This is why you cant be taken seriously...You have an excuse for everything and keep on raising the bar for IT....

I know,Layden was on the verge of winning a championship last year,so IT must win next year or hes a bust....


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> I guess the bottom line is this: I want everything to point toward a championship team, not a middle of the pack playoff team


Alfa,i think you are looking for the sure thing and there are no guarantees...

Do you like what Chicago has done the last 5 years???Thats the other extreme and where has that gotten them????

Its really simple...The odds of winning a championship are exceedingly small..They increase significantly when you get a Shaq or a Duncan......

And how do you suggest we go from being a .333 basketball squad with a massive payroll,to winning a championship team???


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

Chicago was in a position to do great things. The Gm screwed them up. They are actually closer right now to being a great team in the future than we are. I'd move Chandler to center, trade Curry for a SF/PF stud(they have guys or a pick to sweeten the pot), Take a forward in the draft(or pick for someone else and get a decent player in return. They can have cap room sooner than we can by far..so they can pick up a very good player via free agency in a year or 2. I mean a real star. What can WE do? I know...hope that one of the perennial underachievers wakes up or some stud free agent decides to work for nothing just to be a Knick. The point is they have options...we don't. And as a trader you should know that having options is always better than not.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

And I told you how to do it. Wait out the contracts..accumulate good players via smart draft choices while you suck, The icing is a real star FA once the salary hell relents. The fans need to stop whining and be patient. There is no other way. History tells us that. Every time.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> They are actually closer right now to being a great team in the future than we are


not saying i disagree,but we really dont know that..talk about a team with potential...TT would actually lead by example over there,and thats not saying much

I dont see how you cant like what Isiah has done considering you like Chicagos chances...Except they have money to spend,which is not Isiahs fault


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

I think if IT gets a center with the offensive capabilities of Nazr Mohammed combined with the defensive potential of Mutumbo, we'd be a top 4 team in the East at LEAST. Nazr Mutumbo anyone? How about Dikembe Muhammed? Once IT fills that hole in the middle, all criticisms will be rescinded.


----------



## Tapseer (Jun 13, 2002)

Once more for the Supremely Dense crowd. After IT gets here Dec. 22, you've had over 30 different starting lineups, 2 coaches (don't forget Herb Williams 1 game contribution), a couple of trades, your main gun (or #2 gun for those who don't place Allan so high) out of the lineup for most of the season, players still trying to figure each other out, going from being nowhere near the playoffs for the the 3rd straight year, and having NO DIRECTION or HOPE other than hoping A. Mcdyess would come back and be our savior, to people still knocking the Knicks or us REAL FANS for feeling good about our present position and our future. After everything is said and done, the Knicks have a record over .500 after IT gets here and after all the turmoil. A point I think I should make and some people should really acknowledge and not dismiss, is that if you think about how many games the present day Knicks gave away in the last month a half, they probably finish as the 4th seed. For anyone to casually dismiss this thought is not looking at the whole season. The Knicks just lost a lot of games because maybe they weren't in synch or what ever. You give this team a full training camp then see what happens. I can't believe people are knocking IT for a half season worth of work, and WHO KNOWS what IT will do this summer. So certain people should just fall back and give my man some time like all the time in the world they gave Layden, or is there another reason, a NON BASKETBALL REASON why they're knocking IT? I'm not trying to insinuate anything, I just want to know what's all the beef is about with my man IT?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> and WHO KNOWS what IT will do this summer.


Good point,Tap..all the critics seem to think that this team is set in stone for the next 3 years...when it come s to Isiah,The only constant is change...Have some faith


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Rashidi,please tell me you arent pretending that Marbury is old...You must be joking....


Please tell me you aren't pretending that he's younger than Othella Harrington was when the Knicks got him. Marbury's not a kid.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

Don't forget they have like 3 first round draft picks, they're going to be adding at least 5 million via the draft.


----------



## knicksfan (Jan 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm sure that supporting cast could NEVER help Marion, Amare, and Joe Johnson get to the playoffs. Something a certain superstar struggled to do. It should be noted that the Suns are no worse since trading Marbury.




rashidi, can you please officially admit that you are a phoenix suns fan???


----------



## knicksfan (Jan 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> Please tell me you aren't pretending that he's younger than Othella Harrington was when the Knicks got him. Marbury's not a kid.



othella wasnt ever half as good as marbury, and never will be!


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> Please tell me you aren't pretending that he's younger than Othella Harrington was when the Knicks got him. Marbury's not a kid.


is it my imagination or does Rashidi get dumber by the day???

where does he come up with this stuff??


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> othella wasnt ever half as good as marbury, and never will be!


That's why the Knicks only traded Donnell Harvey and Erick Strickland for him. Duh.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> That's why the Knicks only traded Donnell Harvey and Erick Strickland for him. Duh.


Okay, let's get this right for a change:

Draft 2000 
Selected forward Donnell Harvey (22nd overall pick) and guard Lavor Postell (39th overall pick). 
Traded forward John Wallace and the draft rights to forward Donnell Harvey to the Dallas Mavericks for guard Erick Strickland and the rights to forward Pete Mickeal. 

Jan 30 2001 
Traded guard Erick Strickland and 2001 first- and second-round draft picks to the Vancouver Grizzlies for forward Othella Harrington. 

and

February 22 2001, 
Traded guard Chris Childs and a 2001 first-round pick to the Toronto Raptors for guards Mark Jackson and Muggsy Bogues.

So we see that for Othella, Layden gave up Strickland (which took a first round pick: Harvey, plus John Wallace) plus 1 first-round and 1 second-round pick.

For Jackson he Traded Childs and a first-round pick.

For the two he gave up essentailly what Isiah gave up for Marbury.

Lets break it down:

Layden gave a first-round pick (Harvey) plus two unprotected first-round picks, plus 1 second-round pick (= 3 first round-picks plus 1 second-round pick) for Thella and Jackson.

Isiah gave 1 second-round pick (Lampe) plus *rights* to a second-round pick (Vapornick) plus a first-round and a protected first-round pick (= 2 first-round picks (one heavily protected) plus 2 second-round picks) for Marbury.

Layden: 3 first-round, 1 second-round (none protected) for scrubs.

Isiah: 2 first-round (one protected), 2 second rounders (one Vapor), for an all-star.

Layden "traded our future" for Othella and Jackson.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

Wow...you really twisted that to make your point. Are you a law student? First Lampe had the value of a lotto pick and Vujanic was widely considered a steal for a second rounder(like him or not). The first round picks value is clearly defined by postion and draft strength. The picks that we gave up for Marbury were obviously worth a hell of alot more than the ones for Othella.

I'm not saying any trade was better than another. Its just than when most of the guys argue a point here they rarely qualify anything. Clearly we gave up more value for Marbury...as we should have. How much more is yet to be determined.


----------



## dcrono3 (Jan 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> Please tell me you aren't pretending that he's younger than Othella Harrington was when the Knicks got him. Marbury's not a kid.


Well, I do know that Marbury is a hella lot younger than Mark Jackson, which took a 1st round pick too. what, 27 compared to 500? Mark Jackson was around 37,38 at that time right? and you trade a first rounf pick for a guy that old?


----------



## dcrono3 (Jan 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> Excuse me, but IT just did that. He traded draft picks for an old star.


There is a difference between Mark Jackson old (high 30's) and Marbury old (27). Would you consider Marbury as an old player at only 27 Rashidi?


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Alpha, it is you who are twisting it. I've merely stated the draft positions, making no qualifications as to what I *think* they will become. You are the one editorializing and assigning purported value to them. Mine is a literal accounting.


----------



## dcrono3 (Jan 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>alphadog</b>!
> Wow...you really twisted that to make your point. Are you a law student? First Lampe had the value of a lotto pick and Vujanic was widely considered a steal for a second rounder(like him or not). The first round picks value is clearly defined by postion and draft strength. The picks that we gave up for Marbury were obviously worth a hell of alot more than the ones for Othella.
> 
> I'm not saying any trade was better than another. Its just than when most of the guys argue a point here they rarely qualify anything. Clearly we gave up more value for Marbury...as we should have. How much more is yet to be determined.


Granted, Lampe could have lottery value, but Vujanic was not considered a steal in the second. He was considered a nice pick. His value went up after the draft when he played in the world championship games. Still, with all the questions about him (mostly about his willingness to play in the NBA) I would say he was a good pick instead of a steal at the begining of the first round. Even if the draft was after the world championship games, I doubt you would find a team investing a first round pick on him even then. 

So, even if you count Vujanic and Lampe... (Oakley I'm using your numbers)
Layden: 3 first-round, 1 second-round (none protected) for scrubs.
Isiah: 3(4) first-round (one protected), 1(0) second rounders (one Vapor), for an all-star.

3 firsts and a second for crap sounds like a worse deal than 3 firsts and a second for a star. Even if it is 4 firsts for a star it is still better than 3 firsts and a second for scrubs, wouldn't you agree? For (arguably) an extra first (with one less second) you change scrubs into a star, sounds good to me.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dcrono3</b>!
> 
> 3 firsts and a second for crap sounds like a worse deal than 3 firsts and a second for a star. Even if it is 4 firsts for a star it is still better than 3 firsts and a second for scrubs, wouldn't you agree? For (arguably) an extra first (with one less second) you change scrubs into a star, sounds good to me.


That's how I look at it. But none of this proves it was a good deal or a bad deal. I repect anyone who thinks we gave up too much for Marbury. It just speaks to those (very few) who put down the Marbury deal while defending Layden's deals. That is what makes no sense.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

What I am saying is that the teams record when the other ist rounders were given up was much better than this time...which was nearly a lottery pick and will still be very good. The other picks didn't amount to much as they were higher and the draft was weaker. All this stuff should be considered as we are talking about the cost...right? This year is #13, next years will be? What numbers were the picks for Harrington?


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Alpha, I could dig that out, but why bother? Whatever they were there were still good picks, like Boozer, available. Should I count him into the exquation?

If you want to do this on an adjusted cost basis let's give Lampe some time to see what his worth is.


----------



## Max Payne (Mar 2, 2004)

I hope Lampe can keep it together and that one day he's allowed to play PF...he might just become something special and was very very highly touted in Europe.


----------



## dcrono3 (Jan 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>alphadog</b>!
> What I am saying is that the teams record when the other ist rounders were given up was much better than this time...which was nearly a lottery pick and will still be very good. The other picks didn't amount to much as they were higher and the draft was weaker. All this stuff should be considered as we are talking about the cost...right? This year is #13, next years will be? What numbers were the picks for Harrington?


I'm pretty sure we gave away was the 16th pick. We gave away the 22 pick for Harrington, There is a difference, but wouldn't you agree that even though the firsts were not valued the same, lets say the #16 pick is worth 275 and the #22 pick is worth 200, that 
trading away 900-1000 value away for a star is worth more than trading 750-800 away for useless players that hurt the team more than they help (with bith their contracts and poor play)? I'm pretty sure the Knicks will have a better record next year, the the second pick should be at least in the 20's. 

We also gave up a first in the Ewing trade I think. That was also a #22 pick i think.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

Hold on there....I'm not saying the trade was bad..or good. I just want us to discuss things in REAL terms. And that means qualifying numbers. Oak is right. The real values given and recieved won't be know for a few years.

For example: as bad a pick as we knew Weiss was, did any of us know that it was a COMPLETE thrown away pick? Ended up being far worse than it looked at face value. Same thing with the Blazers picking Bowie over Jordan and the Knicks passing on Bird.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>alphadog</b>!
> 
> For example: as bad a pick as we knew Weiss was, did any of us know that it was a COMPLETE thrown away pick?




Actually, yes, because by his own admission Weis said he was not ready to play in the NBA. Which is why I also give so little value to Vapornick. I read those attitudes as very bad signs.


----------

