# Hoopsworld.com : NBA RUMOR MILL - Are The Knicks Better?



## Sean (Jun 7, 2002)

*Hoopswolrd.com : NBA RUMOR MILL - Are The Knicks Better?*



> NBA RUMOR MILL - Are The Knicks Better?
> By Steve "BskBALL" Kyler for HOOPSWORLD.com
> Jan 10, 2004, 10:35
> 
> ...


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> New Knicks President Isiah Thomas has gotten the credit for the deal, a deal who’s foundation was laid by Scott Layden, and simply finished off by Zeke.


I would have thought this to be obvious. Trades take months to complete. Not days.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> "New Knicks President Isiah Thomas has gotten the credit for the deal, a deal who’s foundation was laid by Scott Layden, and simply finished off by Zeke."
> 
> I would have thought this to be obvious. Trades take months to complete. Not days.


Sure, but Layden (and all GMs) had lots of irons in the fire. Layden just let most significant ones fizzle.

Anyway, am I to "read between the lines" then that you approve of the trade. If you are associating it with Layden I would assume you unambiguously do. Actually, I assume you'll stall. Then if it works out well you'll attribute it to Layden. If it fails it'll be Grunfeld or Isiah's fault.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Anyway, am I to "read between the lines" then that you approve of the trade. If you are associating it with Layden I would assume you unambiguously do. Actually, I assume you'll stall. Then if it works out well you'll attribute it to Layden. If it fails it'll be Grunfeld or Isiah's fault.


Why do you continue to assume that Dolan is not in charge of this team?

Let's put it this way. When the Knicks suck again in 3 years, you'll all be calling for Thomas' head anyway.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

thats could be very true...Thats IF..And what happens if the Knicks turn it around?

You know in sports you are only as good as your last trade


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Actually Rashidi,I would take it one step further..If the Knicks dont make the playoffs and the pick we traded away is a top 3 pick,you will be dead right 2 years sooner than you think...

At least Ill be saying that..This team is built to win NOW


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to assume that Dolan is not in charge of this team?


I know you know I think Dolan blows. But we can't fire him.



> Let's put it this way. When the Knicks suck again in 3 years, you'll all be calling for Thomas' head anyway.


Why don't you just answer the question, do you like the Marbury trade?


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

I did answer the question. Use your noodle.


----------



## hatnlvr (Aug 14, 2003)

The Knicks are definately better with this trade!! They unfortunately though are still not complete. Our front line is still slow and unathletic, we need an athletic big man who can run the floor and score in the low post.

As we are now Marbury is a one man fast break bcuz he doesn't have anyone to break with.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> I did answer the question. Use your noodle.


My noodle tells me you're playing it veerry safe. So that if Knicks do wonderful things in the future, and Marbury turns into a hall of famer, and someone tries to quote you, you can say you weren't against the trade. You will say that you were just poking fun at "judgemental" and "impatient" New Yorkers, who you suppose would otherwise be harsh on Thomas, just as they were so silly and untoward to your beloved Layden.


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan (Apr 29, 2003)

Worse. 


We were going to have a spetacular draft.


Steph's ankles are going to fail, penny's going to get re injured.


3 years from now, Lampe will be a player.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Steph's ankles are going to fail, penny's going to get re injured.


Peter Vecsey, not that he means anything to me, wrote that the Suns gave similar rumours about Kidd's health after trading him too. It could just be bad spin.




> 3 years from now, Lampe will be a player.


It's true, Vujanic and Lampe may become really good. But isn't there something to be said for a bird in hand being better than two in the bush? 

I look at it this way, it's an opportunity cost. In three years, or five, whatever the time frame, Vujanic needs to become as good as Marbury AND Lampe needs to be as good as Van Horn AND we need a scorer as good as Houston, just to break even with what we have now.

What is the probability all that will come to pass? To forgo having that now one would have to believe all of those players would actually turn out better than those we have now. Mabe one would, or if we were fabulously fortunate, two, and who knows which, but what is the likelihood of all three? Plus, in addition to those starters, we happen to be pretty deep right now at PG and SG, with a servicable PF and center. That's more than most teams can say.

Do we have a full house -- a contender? No way. But neither do a lot of other teams out there who've been on the rebuild a looong time.

I personally favored a rebuild earlier in the year, but with Marbury we are a lot closer to being a good team now (I know his flaws, but if nothing else at least he filled a relevant hole for us). We may just be a coach and a player or two away from being quite competitive now. We just have no way to know where we'd be in 5 years.


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>son of oakley</b>!
> 
> 
> Peter Vecsey, not that he means anything to me, wrote that the Suns gave similar rumours about Kidd's health after trading him too. It could just be bad spin.


He has had major surgery on both. So.....

Still if Peter Vescey says one thing I'll believe the other.



> It's true, Vujanic and Lampe may become really good. But isn't there something to be said for a bird in hand being better than two in the bush?


Not in basketball. While Lampe and Vujanic ( if he came over ) were developing we would be accumlating more draft picks.



> I look at it this way, it's an opportunity cost. In three years, or five, whatever the time frame, Vujanic needs to become as good as Marbury AND Lampe needs to be as good as Van Horn AND we need a scorer as good as Houston, just to break even with what we have now.


I look at it the same way, we lost to many draft picks, so too much lost oppurtunity.



> What is the probability all that will come to pass? To forgo having that now one would have to believe all of those players would actually turn out better than those we have now. Mabe one would, or if we were fabulously fortunate, two, and who knows which, but what is the likelihood of all three? Plus, in addition to those starters, we happen to be pretty deep right now at PG and SG, with a servicable PF and center. That's more than most teams can say.


True, and who knows maybe everything clicks and this is just a waste of words. Still I'd rather watch players develop than watch us barely scrap by with the same ineffective tools.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> I look at it this way, it's an opportunity cost. In three years, or five, whatever the time frame, Vujanic needs to become as good as Marbury AND Lampe needs to be as good as Van Horn AND we need a scorer as good as Houston, just to break even with what we have now.


There was more traded than Lampe and Vujanic.

What happened to the cap space and draft picks?

The Knicks will be missing those in 3 years when...

Mutombo is 40.
Houston is 35.
Hardaway is 35.
Thomas is 34.
Anderson is 33.
Norris is 33.
Harrington is 33.
Van Horn is 31.

...when their entire roster turns brittle. I wonder who will be replacing those retirees?

Unfortunately, Layden won't be around for Thomas to steal trades from when that time comes.

And thus Patrick Ewing will be named GM of the Knicks. His first order of buisness? Trade Houston and two 1st rounders for Lamar Odom, Eddie Jones, and Issac Austin.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

See,this is what makes it hard to figure out...you tend to bring out the negative aspects of the trade,make it sound like thomas merely finished what layden started and all is lost...So if i read between the lines you DONT like the trade

But you do like Penny from what i gathered from another post

But we gave away too much....

Ok,and you did not really like the proposed Rahim trade,and you definetly dont like the KVH-rasheed trade..

I think you are in favor of a Miles trade,especially if it involves Williams...

So,if I had to read between the lines,am i correct in that you think Layden should still be here,Eisly was a servicable starter and the team had a shot of making the playoffs despite a .333 winning percentage???

And I am trying to have a stright foward post.....
Is there any trade you would have liked to seen as opposd to the marbury trade???

I assume you know my views and what I would have done


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Is there any trade you would have liked to seen as opposd to the marbury trade???


I would have signed Michael Jordan and made him Player/GM.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> I look at it the same way, we lost to many draft picks, so too much lost oppurtunity.


Well this is really what so much of this hinges on. But here's the deal, to rebuild right you have to be willing to go all the way. You have to tank it for a couple/few years to get high order draft picks. Otherwise mid round picks rarely turn out to be great. 

(Hold on Rashidi, you don't have to list a zillion who did, I know they're there, it's just a low percentage, a low probability, something a number cruncher surely understands)

So if we were to rebuild we'd have to stick with Chaney, and try to move Houston and VH, otherwise we're just good enough to suck, but not bad enough to tank. It was the lack of direction either way that I couldn't tolerate any longer.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> Unfortunately, Layden won't be around for Thomas to steal trades from when that time comes.


I know what you wanted. You wanted it all left in the hands of the master deal maker, 2nd uncle, Scott. The one with the personality disorder. We'd plod along listlessly, riding bad players, waiting for their bad contracts to expire, then blow big bucks on a mediocre talent of Houston's caliber. Then we'd trade for a few more guys with broken knees and/or broken careers. All the while letting Chaney work his mojo on the crew, getting us just close enough to be tantalized by the playoffs, only to fall short, but not bad ennough to get good draft position. It's the perfect recipie for long term and short term failure and my nausea is finally starting to wane from the last three years of watching it transpire.

No offense, of course.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

"I would have signed Michael Jordan and made him Player/GM."

why isnt this shocking considering the source.....:no: 

pathetic


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> 
> "I would have signed Michael Jordan and made him Player/GM."
> 
> ...


And he'd probably have Van Horn named player/coach.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Team update*

Jordan to replace layden

we now have 3/5 of rashidis all start team..Jordan signed as player/gm,layden dismissed again

Point guard...Howard Eisly
PF..................Keith van Horn shifted to PF
SF..................Michael Jordan
Gm.................Jordan ,)Layden fired

Head scouts...Dont need them

More to come:grinning:


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Ostertag at center?


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> why isnt this shocking considering the source.....
> 
> pathetic


For someone that quite frequently refers to me as condescending, and are often critical of my so called attitude, it sure looks like you have a problem taking what you dish out.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

you are 100% correct...but this is when i thought you were being really sarcastic and the MJ thing was a complete joke..thats why i apologised when you told me you were serious


----------

