# Curry or Zbo? one must go this offseason



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

*This "LOTTERY" 2007-8 season the (20-54) Knicks have showed no improvement from their last 33 win season.* 

The Curry & Zach lineup must be dismantled. 
Which Player should the Knicks trade this offseason? 

A) Eddy Curry
B) Zach Randolph

Looking for your opinion and why.


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

Out of three seasons of Eddy Curry talking on this site, we should all know the basic remedy to improve Curry talent in helping this Knick Team win. 
Which is hiring ex-Knick players "Patrick Ewing & Oakley" for two seasons to coach the work-outs of the Knicks frontcourt players. 
You never know Ewing & Oakley coaching method probably could get a decent 20 mpg out of Jerome James for at least one or two season out of the six he is paid for. 

There is no hope in Zach Randolph improving his performance to play team-ball other than benching him on this Knick team next season. 
The Knicks showed how lost, confuse, and dismantled the team and organization were by putting Zach Randolph in the starting lineup (over David Lee) with Fred Jones as the 7th man (over Nate Robinson) in the start of this 2007-8 season. 
These two players did not show any interest or dedication to their new situation this offseason to at least showup at any of the Knicks many scrimage games with the assistant coaches and young players inwhich David Lee and Nate Robinson were at each of (that's dedication to the team). 

Zach should've been comming off the bench alongside of Balkman, Nate, and Jefferies, to earn a place in the starting lineup by showing some effort in team-play by working with the rest of the bench players, rather than self stats performances. 

If Portland coach McMillian did not want to build a team around Zach Randolph that should've been a big clue to Knick President/Coach Isiah to not make his players TRY to compliment Zach Randolph 35 mpg performance the first 40 games of this season.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

This is probably not a popular choice but I rather have Randolph than Curry, at least Randolph can rebound, but they have both been horrid this year so if we can get rid of both, then it's all good.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Randolph is far worse*

He takes a ton more shots....and not good ones, which pisses his teammates off. That makes for bad chemistry. Both are bad defenders but Curry doesn't get beat down the floor for dunks, which pisses teammates off. Despite the extra 5 boards, I'll take Curry and his 60% fg. Just get me a strong defending(shot blocking) and rebounding sf like Beasley and we'd be fine. Otherwise get rid of both and rebuild with picks.


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

Why isn't there an option to get rid of both??


----------



## nymoorestx (Jul 1, 2005)

Zach is what he is. I still have hope for Curry. Also Curry gets his points without a ton of shots (like Zbo and Craw).


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

USSKittyHawk said:


> This is probably not a popular choice but I rather have Randolph than Curry, at least Randolph can rebound, but they have both been horrid this year so if we can get rid of both, then it's all good.


If we get someone like Derrick Rose, you can get rid of randolph, and start David Lee and not lose much in rebounding.

I think Randolph should be traded, he's making 5 million more than Curry, and his offensive repertoire will have any team giving him a look hoping to minimize any problems he may bring.


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

i voted keep both

but thats because we have no choice....


----------



## Dean the Master (Feb 19, 2006)

I would trade both, but if i can only choose one, then Curry's got to go. He just can't get it done.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I'd shoot to get rid of both, but if I were Walsh and _had_ to make a choice I'd deal Randolph because a) he has more value and b) he has a worse contract.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

good luck finding someone to take either one of those guys. there is no trade market at all out there for randolph. why else do you think the blazers dumped him for francs(who was immediately bought out) and frye?



Dre™;5411525 said:


> I'd shoot to get rid of both, but if I were Walsh and _had_ to make a choice I'd deal Randolph because a) he has more value and b) he has a worse contract.


randolph has more value? i disagree. and the fact that his contract is terrible takes away from any potential value(though he really doesn't have any).

curry is probably movable, since he is a legitimate scoring center, but really i don't see either guy bringing back too much in a trade.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

They are stuck with both


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

Now that Walsh is the GM, I antcipate one of them will be moved, regardless if any of you guys don't think it will happen. This business is unpredictable everyone who has watched basketball should know that. Walsh actually gives loyal Knick fans some hope he can get things done, because he is well liked in the league and building up relationships with other GM's is very important, and he has the credibility to do so, unlike Isiah Thomas who has more enemies than GWB which I think also hurt his overall performance when it came to wheeling and dealing.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

rocketeer said:


> randolph has more value? i disagree. and the fact that his contract is terrible takes away from any potential value(though he really doesn't have any).
> 
> curry is probably movable, since he is a legitimate scoring center, but really i don't see either guy bringing back too much in a trade.


I think he has more value than Curry being that he's a more productive player. 

All it takes is another crappy GM to feel like making a lateral/backwards move for a paper tiger and he'll move. The Bucks inquired about him but weren't really serious...but there are a couple teams in flux that I could see making a run for him, at least before Curry.


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

Dre™ said:


> I think he has more value than Curry being that he's a more productive player.
> 
> All it takes is another crappy GM to feel like making a lateral/backwards move for a paper tiger and he'll move. The Bucks inquired about him but weren't really serious...but there are a couple teams in flux that I could see making a run for him, at least before Curry.



Curry is much easier to trade than Zach. 
He is a scoring center like big Z. whom need a defensive rebounding PF & SF to help his team. His contract is reasonble at his age. 
Now Zach is a whole different story, his value is ...... lets just say we traded Francis to get him, so what do you think we can get for him???


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

I would trade both, build the team with David Lee at the PF and get an average defensive minded C either through the draft or trade.

Randolph is cancer and Curry can't rebound. Neither is good for long term in my opinion.


----------



## Vuchato (Jan 14, 2006)

you could get rid of one if you take a bad contract back or throw in your pick. They should probably get rid of both, but Curry wouldn't look too bad next to a defensive, rebounding big. A three man rotation of Curry, Lee, and, say, Diop would be pretty solid, all three are young too. 

EDIT: Curry's contract is actually pretty good, the Knicks could definitely move him if they wanted.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

Throwing the pick is not an option. Neither is taking a bad contract.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

I still have hope that Curry can turn things around.

Zach has more talent as of now, but he's not going anywhere else.

I'd chose to keep Zach, but I would miss Curry.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*CURRY has more talent*

Zach puts in ZERO effort at anything other than offense. A lot of his rebounds are on the offensive end resulting in scoring ops. Black hole supreme. I get the feeling his teammates don't like playing with him, as well. Curry has the same basic scoring potential, is a willing, if not successful, passer, and had had good chemistry with Lee in the past. I get the feeling that BOTH will be gone if the chance presents itself.


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

Marbury & Curry or Crawford & Zach? 

With Marbury at the ending of his contract all of us Knick-fans are in luv with keeping Marbury for the entire season to end the $22 million he receive this season. 
Curry & Marbury let Knick-fans see 40 games of Crawford & Zach. 

*Yes' It's obvious that Walsh biggest task this offseason is trading Zach, Q.Rich, Jefferies, and Crawford. 
If the Knicks get the 5th or 6th pick should Walsh trade it to the Pacers for their 11th pick?* 
Along with Zach & Jefferies for J.O'Neal & Daniels?

*That would be two down and two more to go.*


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

I'd choose for them both to go.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

Bump....who still thinks Curry should not be traded?


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

I DO, I DO! OMG, I honestly think, that Z-Bo should get traded now. He takes too many shots and it seems like he's the focal point of our offense when he really shouldn't be!


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Same Curry,,,,different Zach*

Curry first, but I still think Zach should be traded too. Zach for Camby and Jordan works for me. Curry? I have no idea who we could fetch.......


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

obviously the answer is still zach must go 1st , although in this ill fated plan by walsh both have to be traded eventually.

if only because he is the only one of the 2 who is playing , and on top of that he is playing well, he might actually be worth something to someone pretty soon...as opposed to his vaslue this summer when at best he could only be dumped...at some cost to the knicks.


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

Both do have to go at some point. I am very worried that Curry may never be tradable. He just doesn't care enough about basketball to get in shape and focus on being a better player. If he doesn't play for another few months, he may decide that Jerome James is his role model. Once he gets used to not playing, he'll enjoy getting paid and not having to work.


----------

