# Lets Go Geniuses



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

We already had the Layden debate...Layden haters 1-Layden lovers 0.....

Is there anyone who dislikes Thomas as a GM???????

I am on record saying I love the guy for this team..Looks like hes gonn a clean house,buy out ridiculous contracts and evaluate our young guys,and hopefully gamble on Non Mormons like Eddie Griffin

Speak now,cast your vote....You like Isiah or you dont??


----------



## Northpole (Aug 31, 2003)

I like him. Not for such big, blockbuster moves but for the basic GM type moves that Layden would never do.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

i love the moves hes making...layden could never admit he made huge mistakes,and insted of cutting his losses he just added..he was too deep in his own shiiit..


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

He hasn't done anything yet.

Wait for the trades to commence before making judgements.

Layden's firing was likely a change in philosophy by Dolan.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Cmon rashidi,stop sitting on the sidelines...You gotta get back in the game..Do you think Thomas will be good for the Knicks??Take a stance one way or the other..

I know we can only rely on what the press says,but if he is releasing Spoon and activating Sweets and telling Lampe to live in the gym,I like it

Layden was the worst in my mind


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Do you think Thomas will be good for the Knicks??


GMs don't have nearly as much control as people imply they do.

The GM scouts, deals with agents, and makes the phone calls. That's pretty much it. Every owner still needs to sign off on transactions. Some owners intergrate themselves into the process and make it obvious (Mark Cuban, George Steinbrennar, the Maloof Bros.), while others stand in the shadows (Dave Checketts, James Dolan, and until recently Fred Wilpon).

For instance, just the simple fact that Thomas says the team is not rebuilding further emphasizes my point. If Dolan wants the team in the playoffs and not in the lottery, then that's what Thomas has to go for. 

Consider then, that if Thomas doesn't even control of what direction the team is supposed to go, that he doesn't have full control over what trades he can and can't make. He can't fully utilize his GM abilities, because he can only look for trades that are advantageous in a particular way.

Layden didn't have full control either. The trade that lead to Layden's demise, the Ewing trade, was forced upon Layden. Ewing went to Dave Checketts and requested a trade. Checketts gave in because of his respect for Ewing, and he ordered Layden to trade Ewing. Layden did not come up with the idea to trade the franchise player on his own, and obviously even if he did, the owner would have rejected it if he wasn't in favor of the idea as well.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Layden didn't have full control either. The trade that lead to Layden's demise, the Ewing trade, was forced upon Layden.


First off, the Ewing trade was probably one of Laydens first transactions. It was hardly what led to his demise. 4 years of equally bad transactions are what led to his demise, as well as a loosing record, a pathetic demeanor, and a smart clientele (NY fans).

It's true that all GMs work under the umbrella of the organizations/presidents/owners/corporations/etc, and Dolan and Layden shared the process of crafting a "program". Dolan's directive was for Layden to create a winning team comprised of good character players. Unfortunately Layden could only fulfill on half of that prerogative. Dolan pointed in a general direction, and it was Laydens imperative to fulfill it wisely, which he could not.

Now, regarding the trades forced upon Layden, there were 2, Ewing and Sprewell. As a courtesy to Ewing he was asked to trade him, true. But Ewing's contract only had a year left on it. Layden was not forced to trade specifically for the set of players he chose. He wasn't told to take a hobbled shooting guard when he already had a glut of two healthy stars at that position. Ditto the Sprewell trade. We all know Layden had to move him, but he was not told to get Van Horn, and draft 3 big men, accruing 11 forwards on a team of 15.

It's not that Rice and/or Van Horn were such bad players, it's that they were the wrong players for this team and the wrong deals for this team, given the personnel already aboard, and that both trades acquired contracts longer than the ones given up.

Signings like Eisely, Anderson and Weatherspoon were purely Laydens particular brand of genius. No one dictated he overpay such mediocrity for so long. Surely Dolan never told Layden to amass a losing record, miss out on the playoffs, while paying the highest payroll in the league, and pressing the team against the cap for years to come.

Back on point... no question Thomas will be (and has been) good for this team.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> First off, the Ewing trade was probably one of Laydens first transactions. It was hardly what led to his demise. 4 years of equally bad transactions are what led to his demise, as well as a loosing record, a pathetic demeanor, and a smart clientele (NY fans).


The Ewing trade is what led to other transactions.

*Glen Rice was traded for Shandon Anderson and Howard Eisley.* Glen Rice... wasn't he one of those players included in the Ewing trade?

Those two players tend to be Layden's most criticized additions. Ever hear of cause and effect?

Doleac was a good signing, Harrington was a good trade. The Dyess/Williams/Lampe trade is looking pretty fair. Sweetney was the right pick. Were you hoping the Knicks took Nick Collison?

Other than signing Weatherspoon (which I also think was a Dolan deal done to force LJ and Van Gundy out the door), which of Layden's transactions was bad again?


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> The Ewing trade is what led to other transactions.


I simply don't agree with you that a directive to trade Ewing led inexhorably to every bad contract this team has. This is an overpaid loosing team comprised of 14 men, 12 of which Layden has signed. The two he didn't sign (Ward and Thomas) have what may be the best contracts on the team, which is why they are involved in every trade speculation. Most others are barely movable. You blame that all on Ewing? You're trying to validate every bad contract, player glut, busted cap and loosing season?

I'm afraid you spend too much time crunching numbers. You are counting all the trees everyone else can recognize as a forest.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

Mutombo, Doleac, and Harrington are unmovable and have bad contracts?

Layden didn't add Williams, Sweetney, and Lampe?

Van Horn's contract is no worse than Spree's.

Dyess' contract is no worse than Camby's.

Throw in KT and Ward, and that's 10 of the 14 guys on our roster.

The other 4? Spoon, Anderson, and Eisley, whom I already mentioned.

Which leaves Houston, the Knicks best player. His $100 million deal also reeks of Dolan. So other than Eisley and Anderson, the only thing you can really debate about is Spoon.


----------



## Perennial All Star (Aug 13, 2003)

He will do very good. The man doesnt accept failure and he has let it known that if you don't play well, your outta here.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> The man doesnt accept failure


As evidenced by his stints with the CBA and Pacers.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Okay, let's look at the trees...



> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> Mutombo, Doleac, and Harrington are unmovable and have bad contracts?


No, they are ok.



> Layden didn't add Williams, Sweetney, and Lampe?


When you never concede any ground is when you argue against yourself. You are the one who says these guys should stay buried on the bench.

I'm rarely judgmental on drafts, I understand how difficult it is assess NBA talent and potential. But Layden has had 4 drafts. His best pick may be in Denver, and his next best lost in Europe. Still I'll give Layden a C+ in drafting.



> Van Horn's contract is no worse than Spree's.


It's longer, which for this team is worse.



> Dyess' contract is no worse than Camby's.


You talk as though this has turned out to be a good trade. In Camby's injury shortened playing time he alone has more points, rebounds, blocks, and steals than McDyess and Williams combined. Nene is the only one in the package who's turned into a true reliable starter. Add Camby's production to Hilario's and compare to Williams + McDyess and weep.



> Throw in KT and Ward, and that's 10 of the 14 guys on our roster.


Not Layden's contracts, which is why they are ok.



> The other 4? Spoon, Anderson, and Eisley, whom I already mentioned.


Yes, but you mention them as okay when they in fact suck. They are expensive and long. They are a fat tire around our waist. Or is that waste around our tiredness?



> Which leaves Houston, the Knicks best player. His $100 million deal also reeks of Dolan. So other than Eisley and Anderson, the only thing you can really debate about is Spoon.


Again, I disagree with your conclusion. And what does "reek of Dolan" mean? Why would an owner want to give a player twice as much as anyone else offered him? Houston is the 5th highest paid player in the league! I doubt he's even the 5th best at his position. Why would an owner want to give a complementary player franchise player money, leaving himself unable to afford a franchise player?

If Houston had the 50M contract that other teams offered him, and Eisley, Anderson, and Spoon were making backup player money, and we could have swung a package for a stronger player than VH -- or perhaps if Layden had picked up a bonafide point guard in his 4 years!!!! and we'd be in a far better state than now. Accepting McDyess' shaky knees and all...

But having Houston as untouchable, and the backups as unmovable, leaves us in the morass we're in now. Who of Layden's hirings are desirable to other teams? Houston who nobody would take at his money? VH who gets bounced every year now? Doleac, Harrington, and Mutombo, who will get you all of nothing but an overpriced player a cap crunched team is trying to unload -- which we can't afford even if we wanted them? Probably another soft or undersized forward, if Layden had his way...

I'd love to take the time to break down Layden's tenure here, year by year, draft by draft, and trade by trade, but I just don't have it. And we'd be lost in the trees, which is futile. Perhaps we can short cut things and look at the forest?

Just what part of Layden's history do you like so much: our unbalanced roster, our loosing record, our two years in the lottery, or having the highest payroll in the league leaving little maneuverability for improvement? Take all combined and you have Layden's legacy.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

rashidi,i see you have made a new friend...i am sure you will wear him out as you have worn me out

I still dont get the method to your madness,but i respect your perseverance..

layden truly sukked...if you have the highest payroll in the league and you miss the playoffs,its simple..you sukkkk..

just out of curiousity,who in their right mind puts a lottery pick(sweetney) on IR??that alone should get you fired..

cmon man,the guy was a @#$%%$ ing joke...


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

by the way rashidi, can you answer the question???

do you like thomas or not??


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> It's longer, which for this team is worse.


Except he's younger and taller, two things this team needed. Having a guy in his late 20s locked up for 3 years is a lot better than having a shooting guard in his early 30s with a 2 year deal. Most shooting guards don't even make it past 35 years of age.



> You talk as though this has turned out to be a good trade. In Camby's injury shortened playing time he alone has more points, rebounds, blocks, and steals than McDyess and Williams combined. Nene is the only one in the package who's turned into a true reliable starter. Add Camby's production to Hilario's and compare to Williams + McDyess and weep.


Since when are the Knicks supposed to be concerned about the now? I thought all their fans were looking to the future?

Check back in 3 years and see what Williams and Lampe are doing, and compare it to Nene. McDyess and Camby is a wash, both are injury prone and unlikely to be more than bit players in 3 years, if not retired. And Mark Jackson isn't even playing. Denver is paying him not to play for them this season I believe.

The Knicks traded one lottery talent, and got another lottery talent plus a decent young PG in return. Which part of this is bad again?



> And what does "reek of Dolan" mean? Why would an owner want to give a player twice as much as anyone else offered him?


In all likelyhood, to be his media star. It is unknown what other stipulations in the contract there are. All we are told is the money. For all we know, that extra 20 million could be going towards paying Allan to attend all the charity or fan events, etc, stuff like that. Of course, this money does go against the cap, but the Knicks have never been in danger of having cap room for a long time anyway. In fact, my guess is they won't even get cap space for the next 10 years, simply because the team has the funds to be a Mark Cuban or Paul Allen.

For whatever reason, it wouldn't shock me at all if Houston ended up with a position in the front office somewhere under Dolan after he retires. But getting back to the point.

Honestly, think about it. It is so grossly obvious that Allan is over paid. NOBODY would logically give him $100 million if there wasn't a catch. It's not like the GM doesn't have people in his ear, offering their own advice and suggestions. Would all of these people not have noticed that Houston wasn't worth $100 million? Heck, you could probably ask most people on the street if Houston is worth $100 million. It should be clear that this deal too was a work of Dolan, for whatever his reasons may be. Besides. Even if it WAS a work of Layden, Dolan is STILL responsible for letting it happen. Dolan is the one that signs the checks. Is it not his responsibility to notice that Houston was getting a significant raise?

Dolan's fingerprints are all over it. Heck, it could have just been done as an excuse to raise ticket prices. It's not like ticket prices are going to go down when Houston is gone. When prices go up, they usually stay up. There are plenty of possibilities. Few of them point to Houston's actual basketball skills.



> If Houston had the 50M contract that other teams offered him


The Bulls offered him somewhere between 74-78 million.



> or perhaps if Layden had picked up a bonafide point guard in his 4 years!!!!


*coughs in Williams and Vujanic's general direction*



> But having Houston as untouchable


I just remembered another reason. Once Houston signed the contract, there was immediately talk about how Spree would likely be traded, since Houston had all but been guaranteed a no-trade clause with his cash. Houston wanted a no-trade clause because he was afraid of getting traded for Dale Davis 6 months later. They didn't give him a no-trade clause, but they did give him more money, which was just as good. It still means he can be traded if it comes down to it.



> Just what part of Layden's history do you like so much: our unbalanced roster, our loosing record, our two years in the lottery, or having the highest payroll in the league leaving little maneuverability for improvement? Take all combined and you have Layden's legacy.


There is plenty of evidence to show that Layden's legacy is of his own making. Why is this significant? Because if Layden didn't dig his own grave, then his firing isn't directly solving anything. The cancer still exists. All his firing has done is offer NY about a year of optimism before people realize that Thomas isn't some savior either.



> Or is that waste around our tiredness?


*blinks*

Please, for your benefit and the sake of others, consult someone first before attempting such wit.


----------



## Perennial All Star (Aug 13, 2003)

**coughs in Williams and Vujanic's general direction** 

First you want the guy to be benched in favor of Howard Eisley and then you call him a bonafide point guard. Which is it? Now you try to defend Scott Layden, which in my mind has to be the stupidest thing ever in history. How can you defend a man that has to put together a roster this bad and acquired players such as Shandon anderson, Howard Eisley, Clarence Weatherspoon, Othella Harrington, and Keith Van Horn? How about Chris Dudley, Travis Knight, Luc Longley and Glen Rice? Vladimir Stephania? Michael Doleac? Most of these players were/are overpaid, old, slow, untalented players. Scott Layden traded away his draft pick and the crappy Camby along with the aging Mark Jackson for Antonio McDyess and the 25th pick and a 2nd rounder which would become Lampe. At the time, the move was so great in my mind. But it backfired on Layden. Although you look at the deal and say we got Maciej Lampe, you do not give Layden any credit for selecting him. Why? Lampe fell on draft night and shocked everyone. Layden got lucky he fell so far. But the fans also practically chanted for Lampe to get picked with the 30th pick and Layden had no other choice. The legacy of Scott Layden is this: His tenure was overshadowed by his pitiful moves. He traded the most popular Knicks player, acquired overpriced veterans, tried to recreate the all-Utah team, and traded away Patrick Ewing. This is nothing to be proud of at all. Finally the demise of Layden's era has come. We can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel. Isiah Thomas will save the Knicks from futility. And if you wanted Layden to stay on as GM, then I have nothing left to say then that I pity you.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Wow, there is some wild stuff in here. 



> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> In all likelyhood, to be his media star. It is unknown what other stipulations in the contract there are....
> 
> ...


Dude, you wasted or what? Are you trying to imply Houston is being paid to be Dolan's sex toy or something.

It can't be to be his "media star", he's got all the personality of watery oatmeal. And seat prices rose every year since at least when Riley arrived. Only the last year or two, since after Houston's signing, and the rest of Layden's loosing ways, have prices held steady.



> Few of them point to Houston's actual basketball skills.


I see you're finally coming up to speed here on why Layden not only sucked, but needed to be fired by a sucky owner. He sucked so bad most of the world is releived that he was replaced by another, so called, sucky GM.



> There is plenty of evidence to show that Layden's legacy is of his own making. Why is this significant? Because if Layden didn't dig his own grave, then his firing isn't directly solving anything. The cancer still exists. All his firing has done is offer NY about a year of optimism before people realize that Thomas isn't some savior either.


Is there a psychotherapist who can decipher this for me? I'm telling you Layden's legacy is of his own making, and you're spinning wild jibberish.

I took you seriously for a while, now I see you're just hellbent on some sort of "Redeeming Layden's Legacy" crusade that is outside the realm of logic and sanity. You must be his daughter or something.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> First you want the guy to be benched in favor of Howard Eisley and then you call him a bonafide point guard. Which is it?


Frank Williams today and Frank Williams in 3 years are two different players. Williams is far from a bonafide PG. He's still one of the worst starters in the league, on par with Tyronn Lue.

And perhaps if you actually read my statements, you'd notice that I've given credit to Williams on occasion.



> Dude, you wasted or what? Are you trying to imply Houston is being paid to be Dolan's sex toy or something.


You catch on quick.



> I see you're finally coming up to speed here on why Layden not only sucked, but needed to be fired by a sucky owner.


You just spun out, as you missed the entire point. Or you decided to twist my words into your favor. Clever.



> He sucked so bad most of the world is releived that he was replaced by another, so called, sucky GM.


Funny, most of the world is calling Thomas a sensational GM, mostly because he drafted an average PG who put up big numbers because nobody else on the team could play, drafted the most fragile player in the NBA with the 2nd pick, and drafted a high schooler that sucked until he got off the team because coaches intentionally buried him and he conflicted with the team's star. Then in his first act as GM, he waives the worst player on any NBA roster, and people go ****ing ballistic.

Waiving Slavko Vranes is like waiving Ronnie Grandison or Matt Fish.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> some sort of "Redeeming Layden's Legacy" crusade that is outside the realm of logic and sanity.


Oh wait, that's right. Layden traded Patrick Ewing. The media said so.



> Although you look at the deal and say we got Maciej Lampe, you do not give Layden any credit for selecting him. Why? Lampe fell on draft night and shocked everyone. Layden got lucky he fell so far. But the fans also practically chanted for Lampe to get picked with the 30th pick and Layden had no other choice.



1. Lampe was the obvious choice at that point. Other teams backed off because he's a risky first round pick due to the guaranteed contract for a player that was speculated on draft night might have never even made it to the NBA.

2. Even if Lampe was not available, Luke Walton, Jason Kapono, Sofoklis Schortantis, and Travis Hansen were. All 4 would have been good picks. I'd assume that if Lampe were not drafted, the Knicks probably would have taken Sofo.


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan (Apr 29, 2003)

I think a lot of you fail to recognize that the reason Rashidi refuses to villify layden, is that he isn't the root of all our problems.



Some of you also have very poor reading comprehension or have just been blinded by hate. All I have ever seen from Rashidi is that he wants the best player for the job. He doesn't attack or bolster any particular player. 



A lot of you seem to think that somehow Layden was this despot that reigned supreme and orchestrated this mess of team single handedly. In reality he was a man with some crappy ideas, who followed someone elses instructions, and got approval for the aforementioned crappy ideas from someone else.


Anytime you see an issue as black and white, you're never getting the full picture. Whenever you hear a one-sided arguement you never get the truth. Such was our dealings with Layden, he made bad moves, he made good moves, not everything he did was bad. 


In my opinion he is an idiot, who thought Utah was some sort of god dam basketball mecca and that maxing out average players was a stroke of genius.


However he is not the end all be all of our problems, and despite his asstacular contractual arrangements, he did get us Williams and Lampe, and Sweetney whom everyone thinks is crap now because they haven't seen him play.


I am in no way a fan of Thomas's he makes me nervous to tell you the truth. His comments on Larry Bird, his refusal to play Austin Croshere, and the way he almost kicked the crap out of Alvin Williams last year, make me wary of his ability to conduct himself in a proffessional manner and get the job done.

He is however orders of magnitude better than Layden

I'd also like to see a link for the offer the Bulls made Houston, to my recollection his best offer was 50-55 million not 70.


Also



> When you never concede any ground is when you argue against yourself.


This made me laugh.


:laugh

No offense but do you know what you're saying?


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Since I am the only person you quote I assume this is at least partly directed at me.



> Originally posted by <b>Knicksbiggestfan</b>
> 
> A lot of you seem to think that somehow Layden was this despot that reigned supreme and orchestrated this mess of team single handedly. In reality he was a man with some crappy ideas, who followed someone elses instructions, and got approval for the aforementioned crappy ideas from someone else.


All you have to do is look at my first quote in this thread to see my take on this. Dolan gave a general direction and Layden's job was to advise and execute wisely and winningly. Yes, Dolan took bad advice, and it's accepted he's not a great basketball mind. But this in no way absolves Layden of his part.

As to whether some were better and worse than others, sure, but coaches long ago came upon with a way to get past the " excuses, excuses" syndrom... You are what your record says you are.

What I do acknowledge is that Layden's name is often used as a title for all that is wrong with Knick management. Sorry, but it goes with the territory. You saying we don't see the same now from Isiah's detractors?



> quote:
> "When you never concede any ground is when you argue against yourself."
> 
> This made me laugh.
> ...


I think I do, not sure why it's so funny:

From dictionary.com:

con·cede __ (_P_)__Pronunciation Key__(kn-sd)
v. con·ced·ed, con·ced·ing, con·cedes 
v. tr.
To acknowledge, often reluctantly, as being true, just, or proper; admit. See Synonyms at acknowledge.

v. intr.
To make a concession: yield.
---------

In my short time here I've yet to see Rashidi concede any ground to an opponent. That better? Why so funny?

My bottom line is Layden was not a good GM here or in Utah. We also have an owner with no basketball sense who doesn't know enough to see a bad deal when presented to him. It's been a tough combination. Hopefully Dolan has learned from his experience, and Thomas has learned from his, and the Knicks can begin a long process of shaking off the malaise that accrued over Layden's term.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

"In my short time here I've yet to see Rashidi concede any ground to an opponent. That better? Why so funny"..

that is exactly rashidis problem..he is a linear thinker and doent know how to yield..Whats worse,he brings up very informative stats that have ZERO correlation to the the most important variable..winning vs losing....

He also takes stats as gospel and doesnt concede that their is more to a playeres greatness than relative stats...

Have you noticed it takes him 10 paragraphs to answer a simple question such as do you like the hiring of Thomas???..

but his research is first rate


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> that is exactly rashidis problem..he is a linear thinker and doent know how to yield..Whats worse,he brings up very informative stats that have ZERO correlation to the the most important variable..winning vs losing....
> 
> but his research is first rate


Yes, I've noticed all that. He's a numbers guy. He doesn't understand energy, determination, intangiables, balance, chemistry, etc.

The other thing I noitice is he'll argue for the status quo, whatever that may be. He likes stability, ie, Chaney, Layden, the starters, the trades etc, and seems to fear change, even if as small as giving a scrub a look during garbage time. It makes for a conundrum for him though, because after a while even a change becomes the new status quo, which he must then adopt.

We see it with Frank Williams as an example. First he just wants him to smoulder on the bench, as that is what IS (at the time); but now he's getting good and starting, so now he's a great strategy from Layden's past. Rashidi doesn't get that if he was left to smoulder he wouldn't have gotten good this fast. Likewise with the Camby+Hilario for McDyess+Williams. He decided all Dice has to do is make some kind of return and it validates the trade, and validates layden, even though Camby and Hilario are having standout years as starters (at least relative to themselves and their teams) this year, on top of what they did last year, while McDyess and Williams are just beginning to struggle to establish themselves. (My own feeling is I supportd the trade at the time, but we wont know if it was truly good or not for some time yet. Why rush to judgement?)

But I like Rashidi's competetive spirit, and like I said about Williams, he's fun to watch. Rashidi's got the drive I want from Knick PLAYERS , but as a MANAGER, he's got the strategic vision of the guy who was just booted.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>son of oakley</b>!
> 
> But I like Rashidi's competetive spirit, and like I said about Williams, he's fun to watch.


Yikes, I just reread that last post. Sounds rather disrespectful, which isn't the case. Sorry Rashidi. Guess I was just riled by the exchange. I actually find him pretty sharp, however much I may disagree with some of his assessments, and think his 3 star post rating is less than he deserves.


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

Since you guys are talking about GM's, what do you all think about the Knicks/Rockets swap? 


It doesn't make too much sense to me, unless another deal is brewing or something. Moochie Norris is pretty much just like Howard Eisley, they both have long term contracts as BACKUP PG's, I just don't understand. Maybe Thomas wanted Weatherspoon to get the hell out of there or something...


----------



## NYCbballFan (Jun 8, 2003)

Rashidi's posts and spirited exchanges make for stimulating reading. He can be abrasive pushing his opinions as hard as he does and I can do without the sarcasm, but he makes good points. His loyalty as a fan is impressive, and I appreciate his drive to fight (or at least debate) for what he cherishes. That kind of core belief and faith is increasingly rare in our culture, and we are a worse people for the growing lack of it. I only hope Rashidi applies himself equally well to issues in life that are more important than the Knicks. These days, America needs her people to be warriors, but I digress . . .

On Layden, I thought his track record was damning, but the 4 consecutive blow-out wins at least partially justifies what he meant to do when he put together this roster. That's not to say I think Layden put together a championship roster. Ultimately, he failed, but I can't say he didn't have a vision for the team.

Thomas is tasked with transforming the Knicks into another kind of team. What that becomes remains to be seen. Thomas' track record isn't exactly West-esque, either. We'll see what happens. 

During the winning streak against the Grizzlies, Magic and Heat, defense and a play-making PG have made a startling difference. The team is not only winning, it has dominated as much as any of the WC powerhouses. You know, despite the losing record, the Knicks are very much in the play-off hunt. I'm looking forward to the Knicks-Nets game on Sunday to find out what the Knicks will do against the reigning EC champs.


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>son of oakley</b>!
> Since I am the only person you quote I assume this is at least partly directed at me.
> 
> 
> ...


First and foremost don't ever post a definition for me. It's condescending, and as you can clearly see irrelvant since what I find humorous is the context of your post. Throw down any idiosyncratic sesquipidelian you like, I will understand it. 

Furthermore, I always try and refrain from correcting people especially on this board. I have poor grammar, and it's really not my place. If and when I poke fun at you again, my reasoning will derive from the architechtonics of your post.

Something I really try and refrain from is being a grammar natzi, and lambasting people because of they're lack of education. The only times I choose to let loose on people, is when they use words incorrectly in an attempt to mock people, and when they post so incoherently that it hurts to read what they have written.

What I found funny was your word and tense choice, it reads funny and you are admonishing Rashidi for sticking to his guns, while attacking his logic. I'll assume you're a New Yorker so let me ask you, when was the last time you told some guy he was wrong and he responded with an exuberant " Yep!"?


So I digress but to get this thread back on track Thomas makes me nervous, for reasons I have stated before, his racist comments, his lust for coaching, and the way he ignored some of his players whom clearly he could have used if he had the role for them. 

Futhermore I question his approach, as evidenced by his confrontation with AW last year. Honestly, what kind of a coach attacks an opposing teams player?

I also think it's ironically tragic ( in true Knicks fashion) that we FINALLY have a good evaluater of talent. WE COULD FINALLY MAKE THE MOST of our draft pick, and all of sudden we are pushing for the playoffs.



All in all, he is still orders of magnitude better than Layden.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Knicksbiggestfan</b>!
> 
> 
> First and foremost don't ever post a definition for me. It's condescending, and as you can clearly see irrelvant since what I find humorous is the context of your post. Throw down any idiosyncratic sesquipidelian you like, I will understand it.


Oh my, I've been given an ORDER! Your ego's so big it needs it's own rule book?

Unlike your massive intellect, which is able to grasp most any word or tense I throw it's way, and intuit whatever context I may intend, mine is fallow and puny. I could not grasp your intent, and I'm unlikely to remember your personal rules. So please do me a favor, next time you decide to laugh at my post,

:laugh

at least be clear as to what YOU are condescending to. 

Also, please don't tell me:



> Something I really try and refrain from is being a grammar Natzi


and then

:laugh

at my 



> word and tense choice, it reads funny





> and you are admonishing Rashidi for sticking to his guns, while attacking his logic.


No, I was admonishing Rashidi for changing his logic between posts and threads.



> I'll assume you're a New Yorker so let me ask you, when was the last time you told some guy he was wrong and he responded with an exuberant " Yep!"?


Yep!!! I guess I just still find it surprising to see people validating signings like Eisley and Anderson, and assigning vague conspiracy theories to "explain" Houston's contract.

But guess what, you're right. Most people, including myself, do not "cede" any ground to an opponent.

Happy?


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Knicksbiggestfan</b>! If and when I poke fun at you again, my reasoning will derive from the architechtonics of your post.


BTW, what does that mean?


architechtonics, Definition: _
The science of architecture.

If you're not laughing at my grammar, even though you said you were, and that it should have been apparent you were laughing at the context of my post, what then does the "science of the architecture" of my post imply?

Got to make sure I understand your ego's rules if I am to obey them...



_


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>son of oakley</b>!
> 
> 
> BTW, what does that mean?
> ...



entries found for Architectonics.
ar·chi·tec·ton·ics ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärk-tk-tnks)
n. (used with a sing. verb)

1. The science of architecture.
2. *Structural design*:_ the architectonics of a fugue_.
3. Philosophy. The scientific systematization of knowledge.


Learn to use a dictionary properly, I'll answer the rest of your crap later. Stomp has sent me another joy-filled message.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

i had no idea posting on the NBAdraft forum could be so highly educational


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>son of oakley</b>!
> 
> 
> Oh my, I've been given an ORDER! Your ego's so big it needs it's own rule book?


No silly. In the interest of having an intelligent dialogue, I am urging you not to be so condscending as to post dictionary defintions for simple words. If that's how you want to go about communicating to me that's fine, I won't lose any sleep, however as a rule of personal interaction I don't let people take a condscending tone with me without speaking my mind.



> Unlike your massive intellect, which is able to grasp most any word or tense I throw it's way, and intuit whatever context I may intend, mine is fallow and puny. I could not grasp your intent, and I'm unlikely to remember your personal rules. So please do me a favor, next time you decide to laugh at my post,
> 
> :laugh
> 
> at least be clear as to what YOU are condescending to.



See above. It's funny I could have written that response to the first post you directed at me. What's the word that describes that, ironic, moronic something like that right?



> Also, please don't tell me:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No doubt VB code will interpret this differently but I think you can understand what I am attempting to quote.

In any event, don't be so sensitive if something " reads funny" it doesn't diminish the quality, it could be camp or just a unique perspective.





> No, I was admonishing Rashidi for changing his logic between posts and threads.



Is that what you were attempting to do?

I thought you were just trying to be an *******. Let's look at the evidence:



> 1. Dude, you wasted or what? Are you trying to imply Houston is being paid to be Dolan's sex toy or something.





> 2. I see you're finally coming up to speed here on why Layden not only sucked, but needed to be fired by a sucky owner.





> 3. I took you seriously for a while, now I see you're just hellbent on some sort of "Redeeming Layden's Legacy" crusade that is outside the realm of logic and sanity. You must be his daughter or something.


Followed by:


> Yikes, I just reread that last post. Sounds rather disrespectful, which isn't the case. Sorry Rashidi. Guess I was just riled by the exchange. I actually find him pretty sharp, however much I may disagree with some of his assessments, and think his 3 star post rating is less than he deserves.


Seems like you're the one changing between threads.






> Yep!!! I guess I just still find it surprising to see people validating signings like Eisley and Anderson, and assigning vague conspiracy theories to "explain" Houston's contract.
> 
> But guess what, you're right. Most people, including myself, do not "cede" any ground to an opponent.
> 
> Happy?


Amused.


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> i had no idea posting on the NBAdraft forum could be so highly educational


The more you know!


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Knicksbiggestfan</b>!
> 
> See above. It's funny I could have written that response to the first post you directed at me. What's the word that describes that, ironic, moronic something like that right?


Hardly.

The first post I directed at you was to ask what you were laughing at. You asked me if I knew and I said, no, what?

That was my first post to you! You consider that moronic? Man, you're a powder keg.

Look, you interjected yourself into a dialog I was having with Rashidi. You made a point that you were laughing at something I said, and then emphasized it, like so:



> This made me laugh.
> :laugh
> 
> No offense but do you know what you're saying?


I wasn't quite sure, as you could have meant several things, and in fact you tell me you did mean it in more than one way. ("It reads funny" and "the context") But I considered the semicolon before "laugh" a clue that the joke was in my grammatical usage. So I referenced the definition, to show why my choice of the word made sense to me, then asked what you found so funny about it.

Somehow this puts you in a hissy fit. In your reply you take great offense to my asking what was up. You had to make it all about you: your rules, your intellect, your modus operandi, etc. Frankly, I find that boring. I'm really not here to talk about you, I'm here to talk hoops. And when I realized I was getting personal with Rashidi, I apologized and back-tracked from that.

You're welcome to interact with me any way you like. You can laugh at me or take umbrage or whatever. My only request is you don't obscurely pick my sh*t and then bait me along, asking if I understand where you're coming from - then getting pissy if I say "no", and ask where. I really don't have the time...


----------



## MUHAWKS92 (Dec 22, 2003)

*New to the board*

To those who think Layden was any good just remember this: Layden offered one of our PF's and Ward for Darko. I realize that Darko hasn't done anything, but he is still a rookie, playing in a foreign country. This is worst than some of the trades that fans come up with on the FAN. Layden was a laughing stock amongst GM's. People didn't want to even answer his calls since he always came up this kind of garbage.


----------

