# first impressions



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

not that you can judge much from one preseason game,but some things were obvious...

jamal crawford is SUPER talented....6'5",super quick,great handle,great athlete...The guy can flat out play

Ariza definetly has NBA talent....with a little weight and a jump shot hes going to be very very good.....

KT is solid and can really shoot....definetly underrated

Naz sukks...We better hope Vin stays healthy..

And last but not least..Am i the only one not enamored with Marbury at the point??...He looks slow compared to JC


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

sweetney stunk it up. he looks the same as he did last year. his post game has not advanced at all, and he has trouble boxing out to grab defensive boards. no way hes ready to start.

and tim thomas is as soft as ever. theres a reason he only took 10 shots a game last year. cause he doesnt fight for position in the post. he lets the defender get position and then the guard cant pass it to tim and tim just gives up. he doesnt give a damn about anything except fighting kenyon


----------



## Fordy74 (May 22, 2002)

Tim Thomas had a sick dunk. Crawford had a sick crossover. I loved the enthusiasm on the Knicks bench during the game. I also like Jamison Brewer as the backup PG instead of Moochie, I like the way Brewer runs the offense.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

I only got to see some of the 2nd and 3rd quarters.

Knicks are going to be very inconsistent this year. We nay have the most talent in the Atlantic (or not) but the division is open to whichever team develops the best chemistry and plays with the most consistency. I see us as going through some really good stretches, then stinking it up. Part of that is because a lot of or guys are streaky shooters and varied rotations.

truth, the more I watch Marbury the less I like him at the point. I really don't think he has good court vision and he's average at best in an up-tempo game. People always say Kidd, Bibby, Nash, etc, wouldn't make this team any better, and I think that's basically been true. However, looking at it the other way, putting Marbury on last years Nets, Mavericks, or Kings would have been a step backward for them. His offenses just don't flow. He's perhaps best used in the half-court with a dominant big man (he'd have been perfect for Patrick). Crawford is not known as a great up tempo PG either, but I think he'll be better than Marbury. Credit to Isiah for seeing that and getting Marbury some help. Tandem combo guards just may be the absolute best way to maximize what Marbury does offer.

And as for his speed, he's not that fast, he's just got an explosive and deceptive first step or two.

Sweets certainly hasn't arrived, and I don't think he's better than Kurt at this moment. But I do think he has the higher ceiling, so it's a matter of how quickly one wants to further his development. Some are in a hurry, and down on Kurt, and want to rush him into the starter role. Eh, it's not a big deal either way for me. Kurt is smarter, a better scorer, and a better defender, but Sweets is a better rebounder and perhaps has a better move to the basket in the post, but it's far from reliable. Hopefully they can't work well together.

Timmy is infuriating. I' glad he didn't sucker punch Collins, or something dumb, but how about a dunk in his face, or a 20 point effort, or how about having SOMETHING to show. And yes, I saw his dunk, it was great, but one or two highlights with nothing else is not enough from him.

Brewer looks like a nice large guard defensive option and his "flow" isn't much worse than Steph's. He Ariza and JYD might see more time than I'd have liked, but this team needs D wherever and whenever.

I'm not going to panic over Nazr just yet, the refs are calling these games ridiculously tightly. But yeah, he looked lame tonight.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

First game guys. No need to get too crazy with the disappointing posts. Crawford was amazing though. I think with all the roster movement the Knicks have made over the last year, they need to finally settle down and play like a team. 

They need this training camp more than a lot of others. I think Marbury will be on the first team All-NBA this year. I really do.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

penny,oak,can you guys tell me why sweets doesnt have one noticable muscle on his body???KT looked good..the guy can shoot

TT was dissapointing..hes just too #$%^ing soft..and hes got all the tools...even his facial was nonchalant....

Oak,i am not going to come down too hard on marbury yet,but i do not like the way he runs the offense.in fact i never have...on the other hand,I think JC is a total stud..that guy is talented...

For a 19 y.o,Ariza is something....what were the other gms thinking???


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

I hope I'm not sounding too much like I'm coming down on Marbury, he definitely has talent and can take over a game. There's just a distinct difference between being a good player and being a good creator. For the type of up-tempo athletic team Isiah is forming I don't think Marbury is the best creator. I'm just glad he wont have to have the ball in his hands all the time to be effective.

The question is... how will he take it as his claim to fame 20/8 stats decrease. The more he shares the PG role with Crawford, and the higher JC's star rises, the lower Marbury's stats may go. He could still be a valuable/effective player at 17/6, but it may not make him the star of his team, and it certainly wont buy his way into the HOF.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> First game guys. No need to get too crazy with the disappointing posts.


Well you should see how crazy optimistic some are getting on other boards. That's no more justified. And don't tell me you didn't expect more from TT tonight.



> I think with all the roster movement the Knicks have made over the last year, they need to finally settle down and play like a team.


Yup.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> I'm not going to panic over Nazr just yet, the refs are calling these games ridiculously tightly. But yeah, he looked lame tonight.


I read that refs were ordered to call more fouls to increase offensive flow. It figures that the Pistons win a championship with ugly for ratings defense, and the league wants it to never happen again.

Here's hoping the Knicks trade Marbury for Vince Carter or Ray Allen.

By the way, Jerome Williams is by far the most underrated player on the Knicks. For all of Sweetney's rebounding hype, it only makes him around as good at it as JYD, who also happens to be a very good defensive player. I'm far more comfortable with a starting lineup of JYD/KT than Sweetney/Nazr. JYD/KT > Sweetney/KT as well. Look for that to be the 4th quarter frontcourt this season.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

Also, I didn't get to see the game, so can anyone tell me how Ariza scored his 12?

Just glancing at the recap, I wouldn't get excited at the final score. The Nets were up at the end of the 3rd when Jefferson left the floor. And it's just pre-season, but there's a bit to be concerned about if Jefferson and scrubs can outplay the Knicks over 3 quarters.


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

ariza scored all his points on layups dunks and free throws. hes faster then i thought...he still cant shoot, he even settled for a shot clock violation so Lenny wouldnt see his jumpshot.

and the nets scrubs did outplay the knicks scrubs. Brewer cant run the offense, he can barely bring the ball up the court, one possesion he made mike sweetney dribble the ball up. Another reason is that we ran all these plays for tim thomas and he never touched the ball and ran the shot clock out. 

and if the nba is called the way it was yesterday, im not watching any more games. there was a foul every possesion for both teams.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*My two cents...*

JC can be an absolute star. His handle and crossover combined with his quickness will allow him to get a shot any time he wants. If he shoots a decent %, he'll be an allstar this year. 

Marbury does not make the team go...maybe he dribbles to much? 

TT is status quo. I think if Ariza plays like he did he will prove me wrong for saying he will take some time to make a contribution. He may also usher TT out the door. Aiza and Penny could averge close to 20/game, play much better d and board better than TT. 

Hard to tell about Sweetney. He is a low post guy and the Nets were trying to cjoke off the inside stuff and force us to shoot from the perimeter.

KT is as always...solid but not spectacular

Nazr?...Ugh

I liike Brewer much better than Moochie in every way.

Bottom line is I think this team has too many players who are decent. Trades need to be made to reduce the roster and bring us picks or a pivot. Not to speak ill of a NY guy but I wonder if we would be better off with more of a pass first PG with a consistent 3 ball instead of Marbury. I also think we are a little shy on perimeter shooting. If Baker stays well and plays the same way, we can play with anyone if we shoot better. I say 47-50 wins.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> Here's hoping the Knicks trade Marbury for Vince Carter or Ray Allen


Rashidi,i am with you on this one,and I would hope its Ray Allen....I dont consider Vince a "shooting" guard......and i do think Ariza is going to be great one day,assuming the work ethic is there..

KT looked great last night....To me Naz is the real question mark...

Alfa,Ariza can be special...TT better step it up..

I think the success of the knicks is on Vins shoulders....


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> and if the nba is called the way it was yesterday, im not watching any more games. there was a foul every possesion for both teams.


It was like that in the pre-season when they took away hand checking. Teams would combine for 75 FTs in those games. They call it tight now so players get used to it, and won't make those mistakes as much during the regular season.

I'm more concerend about the rumor that they'll abolish the 3pt shot until the last 5 mins of the 4th quarter. That would definitely make me stop watching.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> It was like that in the pre-season when they took away hand checking. Teams would combine for 75 FTs in those games. They call it tight now so players get used to it, and won't make those mistakes as much during the regular season.


Yes, the announcers even said as much. Lets not read too much of anything into pre-season. It's glorified sumer league.

On Ariza. He's good and he's exciting, but not every athletic guy develops a shot. Shandone. Need I say more?



> I'm more concerend about the rumor that they'll abolish the 3pt shot until the last 5 mins of the 4th quarter. That would definitely make me stop watching.


I was thinking to bring that up on this board. On the two other boards I look at fans are about 95% against this. I think it's a perfectly fine idea. Plenty of good ball was plyed pre '79, when the shot was instituted. Scores were higher, shooting percentages were better, play making was better.

The three is what has seduced great athletic penetrators into lazy shooters (Francis, Walker, Crawford, etc), has guys pull up for a low percentage shot on a break (is that more exciting for a fan than a well executed break?) and poor playmaking that relies on iso plays to your star. The game has gotten lazy thru seduction of a quick easy bucket.

The 3 was instituted so that teams could still catch up quick at the ends of games. In the past if a team was down by 12 points with 2 mins left it was over, fans left, sets got turned off. With the three 12 points ain't over with 1 minute to go. For that it works and that's why they'd keep it for the last 5 minutes. They could keep it for the last 5 of every half or quarter too, as an experiment.

Sure a well timed 3 is exciting, but if the average 2 pt shot is 40something% accurate while the average 2 is 30something% accurate you are reducing the chances of an exciting well timed conversion.

Anyway, I'd love to hear a well explained opposing argument (Rashidi?) but on the other boards all I heard was one bandwagoner after another proclaiming the idea "dumb" with no other explanation than that it would make them stop watching. Why?

Oh, the one reason offered was that the 3 spreads the floor, making offenses flow better. Well, 1) offenses don't flow better than pre '79, 2) if long shoits are intrinsically helpful to an offense teams will still do them, no body is taking the long shot away, but there seems no particular reason to further reward what is otherwise just basic sound offense.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

The NBA made a statement that they are not abolishing the 3-point shot. Fear not.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Maybe we need a 4 point shot, you know at about 35 feet out, to spread the floor.

God forbid guys should have to use motion and ball movement to break down the D, when an 18% accurate shot could do it.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Oak...*

I really think the problem is more complicated than most think. Players have become longer and quicker, thus they are able to cover more of the passing lanes than before. The defenses have also become more complex. With the allowed muggings and double teams, it can be extremely tough to find a shot inside of 20 unless you are Richard Hamilton(whose game I love). Steps in the right direction would: no hand checking, holding, and pushing. No double teams outside of the lane. Put an emphasis on fundamentals and athleticism(quickness) rather than brute power. Good shooting would return, passing would improve, and the game would speed up. Plenty of dunks and high flying because guys wouldn't worry so much about being destroued in the air...plus its hard to jump with a guys arm locked in yours. The 3pt shot can stay. If you younger guys want to see a fun game, check out Nuggets from the late 70's and early 80's....140-150 a game wasn't all that uncommon. The late Hank Gathers and our own Bo Kimble played wild ball at Loyola-Marimount.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Alpha, those may all be good suggestions, but it still doesn't answer fans fascination with the three. Rashidi is one of many who said they would no longer watch without it. Now you tell me, where the Knicks championships horrible games to watch? Were Wilt and West such a bore without the three? God forbid we should return to the dark ages of Oscar and Kareem!!!

Some fans were saying that if we are gonna end the 3 we should also end the dunk (or something arbitrary like that.) Well that's not a good analogy, nobody is banning a long range shot, they're suggesting not rewarding it. If Anybody has noticed, a dunk is not rewarded with 3 points. Continue to dunk, and continue to bomb, but they both count of for the same 2 points. 

Otherwise why not make it a game of h-o-r-s-e, where degree of difficulty counts? How about 4 points for a VC through the legs dunk? Or 5 points for a spinning 360 with your eyes closed one hand hook shot?

Sure, fans would love it, and refuse to watch if it were taken away, but rewarding low percentage solutions does not improve fundementals


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*My point is this:*

The three is not a bad thing. It doesn't really hurt the game at all. If you watched the ABA, it was a wide open offense...just as the early NBA Nuggets were. The problem is the way they allow the defense to be played. I happen to think the 3 can be a very exciting play...especially when pulled up on the break to poke a dagger or to accelerate momentum. I do think you would see less of them if the defensive rules were changed...there would be more opportunities for mid-range shots and the % would eventually come up. Bottom line is that people liike big chunks of scoreing and the three provides that. Games can be swung in a very brief few moments. I can live with it or w/o it.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Alpha, if not the fan and player lust for quick and "exciting" scores, like the dunk and the 3, just what do you attribute the decline in fundamentals to? 

I really don't think it's the defenses. Good passing, screening, ball handling and shooting are still the best ways to break down a physical/stifling defense. Isn't that why we are doing poorly in international competition in the face of of a tough zone defense?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

i am on to second impressions,and they are very posirtive based on the first half...

marbury appears to be content playing POINT guard and setting up JC...

Crawford is SICKLY talented....scarrrrrry

Ariza is gifted...very very gifted...Any semblance of a jumper and TT is in trouble....

Interestingly enough,Ariza got as many rebounds in one quarter than TT averages....

TT is the perfect complemetary player...no more...and theres nothing wrong with it,hes just overpaid

Sweetney showed signs of being an absolute beast

more to come


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

i am on to second impressions,and they are very posirtive based on the first half...

marbury appears to be content playing POINT guard and setting up JC...

Crawford is SICKLY talented....scarrrrrry

Ariza is gifted...very very gifted...Any semblance of a jumper and TT is in trouble....

Interestingly enough,Ariza got as many rebounds in one quarter than TT averages....

TT is the perfect complemetary player...no more...and theres nothing wrong with it,hes just overpaid

Sweetney showed signs of being an absolute beast

we need help in the middle

more to come


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

You know what, I wanted TT to be our first offensive option, but I'm tired of him looking like he's out there playing with kids at basketball camp. I know what it's like to be a Bucks fan now. Fuk it, start Ariza, the kid comes to play.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*OK, Oak*

I attribute the lack of fundamentals directly to what the league has allowed to happen on both sides of the ball. Palming, traveling, and hangin on the rim have killed the offense. Announcers go nuts over a play that has no business anywhere but on an And1 tape and kids and players emulate them. All the hand-checking and holding plus the brutal fouls stopping lay-ups has effectively stopped the mid-range and close to the basket buckets...even at lower levels of play. (trickle down effect). NBA fundamentals are down because the players coming in are almost all deficient and that is the pool they draw from...until the Euro phenomina. Do you rally think Jabbar would thrive in this game? Hell, Cowens made him absolutely crazy with his physical defense with no double help. The pistons have perhaps the best motion player I have ever seen, they move the ball, cut and screen, and yet, their offense just isn't very effective. 

From a skill-set point of view, Shaq can't hold Walton's or Kareem's jock and yet he will probably end up being thought of as a better player. If he was not allowed to kill people on D and just overpower players regardless of position, he would be just a bit above average on offense. When the game was good, players used to have to go over or around their guy...not through him. 

Pat Riley with the Knicks and Daly with the Pistons probably had as much to do with the game getting ugly as anyone.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*duplicate post...please delete*

duplicate post


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Good post, alpha. For the most part I agree.



> Palming, traveling, and hangin on the rim have killed the offense. Announcers go nuts over a play that has no business anywhere but on an And1 tape and kids and players emulate them.


And I would just add reckless 3s to your list.

As for Kareem, yes, he'd be every bit effective today. We aren't talking about an athletic thug like Darrell Dawkins, we are talking one of the 3 best ever. He'd still be sky hooking and pulling 15 boards. And he wouldn't be going up against the likes of Cowens, Unseld, Thurmond, Wilt, Parrish, Moses Malone, Ewing, Hakeem, etc, today. Yes, Kareem would rule now as ever.

Shaq and Duncan would be big bodies for him to work around, which he would just fine, but these rest of the punks... Ben Wallace, Yao, Dampier, Curry... come on... for Kareem? A joke.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> You know what, I wanted TT to be our first offensive option, but I'm tired of him looking like he's out there playing with kids at basketball camp. I know what it's like to be a Bucks fan now. Fuk it, start Ariza, the kid comes to play


amen..the guy is mentally soft.....

BTW,if anything ARIZA is underhyped...And with JC,Marbury on the perimeter,Sweets down on the blocks, we really dont need another guy who needs the ball..Ariza at 19,is solid defensively,sound fundamentally,great rebounding insticts to go along with great athletic ability


----------



## Keith Closs (May 13, 2003)

i liked the deal when it first happened and hated van horn but i now realize van horn was a better fit for this team..

He tried hard every game and at the very least was not an a schmuck like Thomas is running his mouth idoitcially at someone who can destroy him on and off the court in kenyon martin..

Sweeteny regardless of what he does in the preseason i think will be a beast..start him and he will average a double double..

Hes a sieve defensively but so is kurt who has trouble guarding any 4's with athletic ability which are most of em nowadays..


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

TT is a very unusual guy....he has talent,but its almost a lazy talent..hes perfectly happy playing second or third fiddle,and really has no presence on the floor..i hate to say it as it is very early on,but he is not an impact player..

It is also very clear that this is a vastly different knick squad,even without H20...Against the nets we were playing 4 on 5 when shandone was in the lineup..With JC,you have your first and second option along with Marbury..TT no longer has to be that player...But he bestter pick up the rest of his game,cause Ariza is going to be a player,if he isnt already..

As for Sweetney,hes a beast and could be the low post presence we need..

As for trading Thomas,Minny turned down the Wally trade and i have no idea what big men are available and worth giving up KT


----------



## Keith Closs (May 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My take on kurts been odd..i always thought he was underrated and appreciated during the knicks van gundy run and was one of my favorite players.. 

lately ive been a little down on kurt.. hes been having a hard time with any athletic frontlines but he still puts numbers up and is deadly from the baseline withthat jumper but i think sweeteny is soemthing kurt isnt and thats a low post presence which we really need...

With the contract isiah gave him though hes almost untradeable wed have to trade for a terrible cotnract in return..

ISiah should have tried to trade em last year because hed have allot more value being an expiring contract..


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Shandone. Need I say more?


Shandon in 02-03 had eFG% of .455 on jumpers, with .510 eFG% overall. 03-04 was .382 and .455, but he didn't shoot well until post all-star break.

02-03 Eisley was .514 on jumpers, .521 overall.

03-04 Marbury was .416 on jumpers, .463 overall. Of course fewer of his shots were assisted, but I wonder just how much that's worth. Does a team really need a PG chucking up unassisted jumpers instead of running a play and recieving the ball in a set position?



> Anyway, I'd love to hear a well explained opposing argument (Rashidi?) but on the other boards all I heard was one bandwagoner after another proclaiming the idea "dumb" with no other explanation than that it would make them stop watching. Why?


It's a tough call. I like the three, but there are too many guys taking it that shouldn't be *COUGH*MarburyIversonWalker*COUGH*. I think part of this is the coaches fault, and the scouts fault. Nowadays a guard is looked down on if he doesn't have 3pt range (Andre Miller and Carlos Arroyo are perfect examples). It should be up to a coach to get guys to stop taking stupid shots from that range. Missing a three can get you into a hole just like making one can get out of one. It's very much a momentum play. When they're falling, it's great.

Rather than take away the 3 until the end of games, I would make it so that if you're up by say, 10, threes don't count as threes anymore. That's how you let teams get back in, when you're up by a lot and you're throwing away possessions by taking low percentage shots. 

A lot of times a three "appears" to be a dagger. Like if you're up by 5 with a minute and a half left, and you hit a 3, the game is pretty much out of reach. But if you hit a 2 anyway, the game is still out of reach.

Rather than take away threes and change the rules, I think it would be better if coaches could just teach their dumbass players. If Walker brings the ball up himself and bricks a three in the first 3 minutes of the game, bench him. But if a team runs a well designed play that ends up with Peja Stojakovic drilling one wide open, then sure, you don't want to lose that. I also think that if a player hits a desperation shot towards the end of the quarter, it means more if it counts as a 3.

This actually made me think of an intriguing game to invent, if you want to promote ball movement and scoring. Well, in hockey if a player gets an assist it counts as a point for him (not for the team, but for the player to indicate his offensive value or something, I don't watch hockey). And I think two guys can get an assist on a shot. So make it so every time you pass the ball (on your side of the court), that's adding an additional point to the value of the shot. So if you made 3 passes and took a 2pter, it would be worth 5 points. It would make for some very interesting end game situations (how many passes can you get off before the shot clock expires, and can you still get off the shot against the defense), and also possibly get to the point where guys are passing too much. Of course, it would be worth it to foul the other team if FTs only counted as 1 point, but it would probably work if you doubled them to 2 points each.

It would probably be very confusing and there's most likely an abusable flaw in it somewhere, but it would be interesting to test out.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> Rather than take away threes and change the rules, I think it would be better if coaches could just teach their dumbass players


amen:yes:


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Some guys prefer to be traded than coached.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Shandone's shooting stats are a surprise, but if you compare him similarly to other guys who own the positions he plays (T.Thomas, A Houston) you see why he's a scrub. He's also supposed to be a good defender but I've never seen more dumb plays to end critical quarters and halfs. His clutch stats blow. And here's the short of it, last years team ranked by on the court/off the court value to the team per 48 mins.


_Williams
+4.2
-2.7
+6.9

_Sweetney
+2.8
-2.1
+4.9

_McDyess
+0.7
-1.8
+2.4

_Hardaway
+0.1
-2.2
+2.3

_Thomas
-0.7
-2.9
+2.1

_ThomasT
+0.1
-1.9
+2.0

_Norris
+0.1
-1.7
+1.8

_Van Horn
-0.4
-2.2
+1.8

_Marbury
-0.7
-2.2
+1.5

_Houston
-0.9
-2.0
+1.1

_Mutombo
-1.3
-1.6
+0.2

_Doleac
-1.5
-1.5
+0.0

_Baker
-2.6
-1.4
-1.2

_Weatherspoon
-2.8
-1.4
-1.4

_Mohammed
-2.9
-1.2
-1.6

_Harrington
-3.1
-1.1
-2.0

_Ward
-3.7
-0.9
-2.8

_Johnson
-5.1
-1.2
-3.9

_Anderson
-4.9
+1.8
-6.7

_Eisley
-7.2
-0.2
-7.0

_Sundov
-76.5
-1.4
-75.0

_Trybanski
-110.8
-1.4
-109.4


Rashidi, your stubborn defense of the underdog is commendable but even the best defense lawyers lose when the evidence is overwhelmingly against their clients. The only guys worse for the team were a dude working on a 10 day contract, and one glued to the IR.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

Btw, I think I remembered, KT was almost traded for Malik Rose on deadline day (who has a contract just as bad as the one we gave KT).  The Crawford deal was something else.



> TT is the perfect complemetary player...no more...and theres nothing wrong with it,hes just overpaid


In other words, he gets a free pass because Scott Layden didn't sign him.



> TT is a very unusual guy....he has talent,but its almost a lazy talent..hes perfectly happy playing second or third fiddle,and really has no presence on the floor..i hate to say it as it is very early on,but he is not an impact player..


That was the knock on him way before he came here though. It's not really early on anymore when you're 27, or however old he is. Marbury has a better chance of breaking out at this point.



> lately ive been a little down on kurt.. hes been having a hard time with any athletic frontlines but he still puts numbers up and is deadly from the baseline withthat jumper but i think sweeteny is soemthing kurt isnt and thats a low post presence which we really need...


I think it's time Kurt accepts the fact that he's NOT a PF. He's really an undersized center. Willis Reed was only 6'9" (of course the league was smaller back then). He's quicker than most centers, but he's not a quick PF. He's still a wall in one on one post defense, it's just easier for a PF to get around that wall. He'd help himself at center if he could contest more shots, but it's not like anybody else on the team does it well anyway.



> ISiah should have tried to trade em last year because hed have allot more value being an expiring contract..


I'm pretty sure KT for Crawford was one of those deals that fell through at the 12th hour. Didn't they ask league offices for an extension or something? Or maybe I'm thinking of the Sprewell - Cassell deal from 02-03.



> As for trading Thomas,Minny turned down the Wally trade and i have no idea what big men are available and worth giving up KT


The answer is none. KT has a pretty good contract compared to what other big men in the league have. It's fair value. No, he probably won't be worth it at the end, but what veteran is worth their contract at the end anyway? It's a stupid pricing policy, value should go down as the player gets older, because he's getting worse. I don't think anybody would care if Kurt were getting 7 million this year and 5 million in his final year.

But lets go down the list of a few big men and their salaries, to see if KT is really overpaid. Numbers in the millions.

Shaquille O'Neal: 29.4
Chris Webber: 17.5
Kevin Garnett: 16.0
Jermaine O'Neal: 14.7
Antoine Walker: 14.6
Zydrunas Ilgauskas: 14.6
Shareef Abdur-Rahim: 14.6
Tim Duncan: 14.2
Dikembe Mutombo: 14.2 (this is how much he is making off his waived Nets contract alone)
Brian Grant: 13.3
Dirk Nowitzki: 12.5
Elton Brand: 12.0
Antonio Davis: 12.0
Kenyon Martin: 11.0 (will make 16.6 in final year)
Lamar Odom: 10.4
Theo Ratliff: 10.0
Rasheed Wallace: 9.1
Raef LaFrentz: 9.0
Maurice Taylor: 8.4
Austin Croshere: 8.2
Alan Hendersen: 8.2
PJ Brown: 8.0
Kelvin Cato: 7.9
Brad Miller: 7.8
Lorenzen Wright: 7.1
Erick Dampier: 7.0 (with lots of raises coming, 12.2 in final year)
Mehmet Okur: 6.6 (10.0 in final year, practically as overpaid as RLF by then)
Marcus Camby: 6.5
Adonal Foyle: 6.5 (9.7 in final year, team has team option for another year at 10.5, no way in hell they take that, but then again, it's the Warriors)
Jonathon Bender: 6.3
Al Harrington: 6.2
Jason Caffey: 6.1 (Bucks paying him NOT to play)
Rasho Nesterovic 6.1
Vitaly Potapenko: 6.1
Ben Wallace: 6.0
Stromile Swift: 5.9
Danny Fortson: 5.9
Calvin Booth: 5.9
Todd MacCulloch: 5.8
Joe Smith: 5.8
Jahidi White: 5.8
Clarence Weatherspoon: 5.8
Kurt Thomas: 5.8
Scot Pollard: 5.7
Jerome Williams: 5.6
Corliss Williamson: 5.5
Alonzo Mourning: 5.4
Michael Olowokandi: 5.4
Kwame Brown: 5.3
Bo Outlaw: 5.3
Nazr Mohammed: 5.2
Antonio McDyess: 5.0
Brian Cardinal: 5.0
Vlade Divac: 4.9
Ervin Johnson: 4.9
Tony Battie: 4.8
Derrick Coleman: 4.5
Donyell Marshall: 4.5
Jerome James: 4.5
Yao Ming: 4.4
Elden Campbell: 4.4
Pau Gasol: 4.3
Marc Jackson: 4.2
Greg Ostertag: 4.2
Jeff Foster: 4.2
Dwight Howard: 4.1
Shawn Bradley: 4.0 (who isn't nearly as overpaid as he's made out to be, but he does have 3 more years after this one).
Darko Milicic: 3.8
Emeka Okafor: 3.7
Vin Baker: 3.4
Aaron Williams: 3.1
Evan Eschmeyer: 3.1
Wang Zhi Zhi: 2.5
Amare Stoudemire: 2.0
Zach Randolph: 1.8 (I can understand why he wants the max)
Mark Madsen: 1.6
DJ Mbenga: 1.6 (who in Dallas gave more to Mbenga than Pavel and as much as Madsen?)
Pavel Podzolkine: 1.0

So KT isn't really overpaid. He's better than Todd MacCulloch (even if T-Mac didn't have the disease), Jahidi White, Calvin Booth, and Scot Pollard. He's certainly worth more than Brian Grant, Antonio Davis, or Raef LaFrentz (though RLF could shut everyone up this season). 

The only true bargain here might be Donyell Marshall, and Ben Wallace (who in 2 years, will be in a very interesting situation on the FA market, how much is his defense worth? Apparantly a lot when you look at what Adonal Foyle got). And obviously Yao, Randolph, Amare, and Gasol, but they havn't hit free agency yet.

How is Jonathon Bender making more than Al Harrington?

Btw, Allan Houston isn't THAT overpaid when you consider that Damon Stoudamire is the highest paid PG in the league. At least Houston made 2 all-star games in his career, and is one of the top 5 shooters in the league (arguably third when healthy).

You know why KT for Wally has probably fallen through? Because Minnesota would probably prefer the Knicks take Olowokandi if he can't get it together. That's really the only fair talent deal they'd be able to do.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> You know why KT for Wally has probably fallen through? Because Minnesota would probably prefer the Knicks take Olowokandi if he can't get it together. That's really the only fair talent deal they'd be able to do.


At this point, with the promise Crawford and Ariza are showing, and the possible contributions of Houston too, we have sufficient firepower at the 2 and 3. Kandi might even be the better option for us.

I feel pretty good about the squad 1 - 4. A trio of Kurt or Nazr + Baker + Kandi at the 5 wouldn't be too bad.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> You know why KT for Wally has probably fallen through? Because Minnesota would probably prefer the Knicks take Olowokandi if he can't get it together. That's really the only fair talent deal they'd be able to do.


wow..thats verrrry interesting....so you think MINNY said take kandi as opposed to wally???

kandi has one year left on his contract..I would do that trade,though KT is the better player,but there is a logjam at the Power foward spot


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

The team really lacks perimeter shooting though, and the biggest difference between Wally and TT in my mind isn't that Wally is a better shooter, it's that he isn't afraid to shoot.

When your best three shooters are Jamal Crawford, Tim Thomas, and Stephon Marbury (4th best is Penny) you better be able to run like the Nets. They might be able to pull it off with Jerome Williams at the 4, and if Marbury knew how to push the ball half as well as Kidd (someone should let him know that passes are faster than dribbling the ball up the court yourself). In other words, that's the biggest obstacle between the Knicks being anything more than mediocre.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

bleh, wrong thread.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

I agree with you on Marbury..the knicks become road runners when Ariza and Jc play together..Marbury is great in the half court set....

Rashidi,I am not so sure JC isnt a much better shooter than he has shown in the past...With Starbury penetrating and kicking it out,JC has had a lot of good open looks....

H20 can slide over to the 3 at times..hes a fairly big 6'5"....Marbury ,Jc and h20 is decent perimeter shooting...

And you are dead on about TT..he is content being the 3rd or 4th option..his numbers are good for the amount of shots he takes

so,mr rashidi...Kandi or Wally for Kurt..you choose


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> The team really lacks perimeter shooting though, and the biggest difference between Wally and TT in my mind isn't that Wally is a better shooter, it's that he isn't afraid to shoot.


I hear that, but if Wally were had for KT do you think he'd automatically start at SF over TT? Wally might really only be used for SG/SF relief, much as Houston may end up being used, and Like Allan, Wally is an injury risk.

It's true that Wally is a better more agressive shooter than TT, but he's worse on D, rebounding (without checking stats to be sure), ball handling, and post moves. IOW, Wally is a perfect Vinnie Johnson spark plug off the bench. But so could be Houston too. :gopray:


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

You can't play Houston at the 3. He can barely guard the 2 and guys are too big for him at the 3. With that gimpy knee he will be back on the DL in no time. 

He needs to except coming off the bench now and riding out that last few years of his horrible contract.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> You can't play Houston at the 3. He can barely guard the 2 and guys are too big for him at the 3. With that gimpy knee he will be back on the DL in no time.
> 
> He needs to except coming off the bench now and riding out that last few years of his horrible contract.


Yeah, but when you go to the 3 guard alignment you know you're going to give up ground on defense, you do it under the assumption a good offense is your best defense, with the expectation of simply outscoring your opponent.

Understand the 3 guard alignment is not your core starting group (we tried that with Spree), it's a unit you go to for stretches.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> And here's the short of it, last years team ranked by on the court/off the court value to the team per 48 mins.


I think 82games mentions that this stat is a bit inconsistent. It certainly seems that way. There are 7 Clippers ahead of Elton Brand, including Melvin Ely, Q-Rich, Marko Jaric, and Maggette. Brand only had +1.6. It seems that teams that win will have higher numbers there. I mean, Marbury was only +1.5 on the Knicks, behind KVH (1.8), Norris (1.8), TT (2.0), Penny (2.3), and McDyess (2.4)

Pacers
Reggie Miller 11.7
Jeff Foster 10.6
Ron Artest 9.2
Jamaal Tinsley 9.2
<b>Jermaine O'Neal 6.6
Al Harrington -11.4</b>

See what I mean?

Additionally, the site shows the Knicks were 23-21 in games KVH played. They were 20-26 in games Marbury played. Obviously Marbury is the better player, but different circumstances lead to different results. I would think a lot of the stats on that site are left up to interpretation. Actually, ALL stats should be left up to interpretation. I think their shooting stats are much easier to consistently interpret than all this net value stuff. As I understand it, a guy like Devean George should benefit by playing next to 4 stars (Fox and George were the only other players on the Lakers besides the 4 stars to have a positive net). An average guy starting seems to have a better value than guys coming off the bench and playing with the 2nd unit (just look at the Pacers). Eisley got the bulk of his minutes early in the year when the Knicks had hobbled KVH and Houston, and faced lots of tough teams (thus obviously not winning). Maybe if the Knicks had faced teams like Atlanta and Washington in the first 6 weeks instead of the Wolves, Pacers (twice), Lakers (twice), Spurs, and Kings, things would look different. There's a reason Knicks only had one quality victory post-Marbury trade (Indiana at home). Because they had already played most of those teams prior to the trade.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>son of oakley</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, but when you go to the 3 guard alignment you know you're going to give up ground on defense, you do it under the assumption a good offense is your best defense, with the expectation of simply outscoring your opponent.
> ...


I wish that were true, but a gimpy Allen Houston trying to defend 3 men is a disaster. He's basically a spot up shooter now, with a huge contract. I'll be glad, when 3 years is up and Houston is gone personally. 

Layden should be smacked about a 1000 times upside the head for paying Houston a good 40 million more than anyone else was offering. :upset:


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

these stats are really crazy...........is there one for FG percentage on open shots? i think that jamal is a great shooter who just never got man good looks in chicago since they stink,leading to his bad percentages. in his first year i think he shot well over 40 percent on threes, and so far even though its only 2 games in, hes shot 5-7 on threes...

and tim thomas' 3 point shooting is underrated. he can hit the open trey without a problem. we have no problem with half court scoring until Marbury leaves the floor. Brewer simply cant run the offense,id rather have moochie play.........

And marbury does stink on the fast break.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> I hear that, but if Wally were had for KT do you think he'd automatically start at SF over TT? Wally might really only be used for SG/SF relief, much as Houston may end up being used, and Like Allan, Wally is an injury risk.


Well, judging by TT's "contributions", it's not like Wally wouldn't be able to handle the playbook. At worst all he has to do is stand around like TT does and it's an improvement. Wally is a former all-star, TT is still trying to become as good as Wally.

Tim Thomas career
11.9 ppg
4.1 rpg
1.4 apg
0.8 spg
0.4 bpg
1.5 tpg
26.3 mpg
.443 fg%
.362 3pt%
.763 ft%

Wally Szczerbiak career
14.9 ppg
4.5 rpg
2.8 apg
0.7 spg
0.3 bpg
1.6 tpg
33.4 mpg
.500 fg%
.413 3pt%
.846 ft%

By the minutes, TT scores about as much as Wally, but he's far less efficient at it. With the erratic play of Marbury and Crawford, the Knicks definitely need an efficient shooter of this magnitude, not another erratic guy. A below average game should be 4-9, not 4-11. Wally might actually be a downgrade from TT on defense, but he makes up for it with not just his offense, but a positive A/T ratio rather than a negative one. He was running the offense for stretches when Cassell went down in the Conference Finals, you won't see Tim Thomas ever do that.

And although he's been injured for periods, just look at his 3pt% over the last 3 years. 455, 421, and 435. He's one of the main reasons the 3pt shot should stick around, because he doesn't take a bad shot. He's more accurate from that range than some players are from in close. If anyone could thrive from Marbury and Crawford's penetration, it's Szczerbiak.



> You can't play Houston at the 3. He can barely guard the 2 and guys are too big for him at the 3. With that gimpy knee he will be back on the DL in no time.


Firstly, Houston is very underrated on defense at the 2. I've yet to see anyone ever bring up an instance where he was badly abused. If anything I think he gets a bad rap because Sprewell always guarded the best player, but thats because Spree was an exceptional defensive player. The most glaring knock I hear is he gets the fewest steals of any starting guard, but it's not like Bruce Bowen averages that many steals.

Secondly, it's not like Dennis Scott was a defensive stalwart. The reason Scott was a SF was he was too slow to guard 2's and nowhere near strong enough to guard 4's. The 3 is an odd position defenisvely because there are so many different SFs. There's shooters, there's slashers, there's post up guys. Scott couldn't guard any of these guys, and frankly, he couldn't guard my untied left shoe. But he could shoot, and he shot well.

Scott's best season
17.5 ppg
3.8 rpg (one every 10 minutes?)
3.0 apg
1.1 spg
0.3 bpg
37.1 mpg
.440 fg%
.425 3pt% (shortened line)

I think you could expect Houston to put up numbers similar to that at SF (12 ppg in 28 mins?), and Wally to put up numbers BETTER than that if given 37 mpg (17/5/4 with better shooting percentages).

Wesley Person is going to see some time at the 3 this year, and Steve Smith saw more time at the 3 than the 2 last year. It's not like big guards are a rarity at the 3, even if they can't guard a blind man. Since it's usually a speed issue, better they guard SFs rather than quicker guards.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Rashidi, you can't play Houston big minutes at the 3 spot, because he's coming off major knee surgery for one and two, the Knicks don't have the kind of shotblockers to make up for having a poor defensive perimeter unit where 2 of the 3 guys are giving up in size. Maybe for 10-15 minutes a game, this can happen, but this can't happen for the duration. It's bad for business.

Who's to say that Houston will even come back and be effective anymore the way he used to? Will he be even a decent defender, considering he would have to defend bigger stronger guys? I hate to see him trying to defend Artest. 

On Wally, Wally is a good offensive player, but his over-inflated ego of his game is what I am leery about. He wants to shoot and that's it. Just shoot and shoot some more. I don't like bringing in Wally personally, unless he fixes his attitude.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Layden should be smacked about a 1000 times upside the head for paying Houston a good 40 million more than anyone else was offering


James Dolan.



> I wish that were true, but a gimpy Allen Houston trying to defend 3 men is a disaster


Let's put it this way. In terms of disasters, at the 2 it might be an 8 on the richter scale, whereas at the 3 it would only be a 6.



> these stats are really crazy...........is there one for FG percentage on open shots? i think that jamal is a great shooter who just never got man good looks in chicago since they stink,leading to his bad percentages. in his first year i think he shot well over 40 percent on threes, and so far even though its only 2 games in, hes shot 5-7 on threes...


Well, figure that assisted shots are open shots.

85% of Crawford's shots last year were jumpers. 51% were assisted. He had eFG% of .439 on jumpers.

The year before, 81% of Crawford's shots were jumpers. 38% were assisted. He had eFG% .449 on jumpers.

Crawford prior to last season was a 35-36% 3pt shooter. I would attribute his low percentage to being trigger happy than anything else (took 521 of his career 938 3pa last year) but that still doesn't make him much more than average or slightly above average from 3pt range. I'd rather have him drive than shoot it, but given that at least 80% of his shots are coming from the outside... guess he needs to bulk up because he really is afraid of contact. He's attempted 938 threes in his career, but only 416 FTs, I don't think that bodes well.



> and tim thomas' 3 point shooting is underrated. he can hit the open trey without a problem.


The problem is he is more content to wait for the shot than to look for it, which could pose a problem at the end of games.
Marbury and Crawford are going to be taking those 3's in the closing minutes when all is said and done.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Rashidi, you can't play Houston big minutes at the 3 spot, because he's coming off major knee surgery for one and two, the Knicks don't have the kind of shotblockers to make up for having a poor defensive perimeter unit where 2 of the 3 guys are giving up in size.


Tim Thomas might be 6'10", but he plays 3 inches shorter. They're going to be undersized regardless of where Houston plays. 



> Maybe for 10-15 minutes a game, this can happen, but this can't happen for the duration. It's bad for business.


That's more or less what I would aim for.



> On Wally, Wally is a good offensive player, but his over-inflated ego of his game is what I am leery about. He wants to shoot and that's it. Just shoot and shoot some more. I don't like bringing in Wally personally, unless he fixes his attitude


So basically, you're saying he's like Crawford or Marbury but more effiicient at his chucking. As long as a guys basket's are going in 50% of the time, I think it's a bit silly to criticize how many shots he's taking. Only big men are supposed to hit 50% of their shots, and it's not like he's stuffing down dunks like Richard Jefferson.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Well in regards to Wally, with Marbury, Crawford and Tim here, is Wally necessary and does it become a matter of chemistry and are there enough shots to go around.

Do the Knicks need to really keep tinkering with the roster? I mean can't they see what they have for a month or two before they make anymore deals? It would be nice to see what they have first, before dealing again.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Well in regards to Wally, with Marbury, Crawford and Tim here, is Wally necessary and does it become a matter of chemistry and are there enough shots to go around.


It does seem a bit similar to Milwaukee

Cassell = Marbury
Allen = Crawford
Robinson = Wally
Thomas = Thomas

I think chemistrywise it has a better chance of working, because those 3 guys were shoot first guys, while Marbury, Crawford, and Wally seem to pass a bit more, and also don't have nearly the egos those guys did.

The Bucks had 3 all-stars, the Knicks have 1 all-star who is clearly the leader of the team (whereas on the Bucks there was no clearcut best player). G-Rob and Allen were both 20-22 point scorers, while Cassell was 18-19. Crawford and Wally are more 15-17 point guys than 20 point guys. They are better at being supporting characters than stars, and I think Wally knows that even though he *****es for more shots. I probably would too if I was a career 50% shooter and wanted to win. And while I don't know how significant it is, Wally is from Long Island and sounds like he would prefer to settle his family down here, and complaining about shots is a good way to get traded from NY the minute you have a 5 game shooting slump. I also think there would be less animosity between TT and Wally as there was between TT and G-Rob, because Wally will get minutes at the 2 (while G-Rob was mostly SF, forcing TT to play the 4).


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Do the Knicks need to really keep tinkering with the roster? I mean can't they see what they have for a month or two before they make anymore deals? It would be nice to see what they have first, before dealing again.


I'm not the GM/Owner, so that appears to be the plan. I also don't think Minnesota (especially them, but any team in general) is going to trade anybody for awhile, for that reason. If everything works out for the Wolves, on paper they have 65 win potential. Wally and Kandi are only on the block if the results are significantly worse than the paper.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not the GM/Owner, so that appears to be the plan. I also don't think Minnesota (especially them, but any team in general) is going to trade anybody for awhile, for that reason. If everything works out for the Wolves, on paper they have 65 win potential. Wally and Kandi are only on the block if the results are significantly worse than the paper.


I could settle for that. I would love to have Wally personally, but I would like having him more if Shandon was bought out and Houston wasn't as healthy (meaning he can only play 20 minutes max), because then the minutes would take care of themselves. The Knicks just seem to have a lot of players in the same area. Interchangeable parts no doubt about it, but with so many guys it's just weird. 

But anything to get rid of Kurt Thomas is good enough for me.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PennyHardaway</b>!
> these stats are really crazy...........is there one for FG percentage on open shots? i think that jamal is a great shooter who just never got man good looks in chicago since they stink,leading to his bad percentages. in his first year i think he shot well over 40 percent on threes, and so far even though its only 2 games in, hes shot 5-7 on threes...


Everybody agrees JC's shot selection needs work, but beyond that, one of the reasons his % was so bad was that as the only reliable scorer last year he'd often be given the ball with just a few ticks left on the shot clock putting him in position to have to force something up. 

He's also yet to have a good NBA coach.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>son of oakley</b>!
> 
> 
> Everybody agrees JC's shot selection needs work, but beyond that, one of the reasons his % was so bad was that as the only reliable scorer last year he'd often be given the ball with just a few ticks left on the shot clock putting him in position to have to force something up.
> ...


These things are clear and obvious, yes?

Try getting some of the yocals on the Bulls board to believe this.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> He's also yet to have a good NBA coach.


And argueably, he'll have to keep waiting.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> These things are clear and obvious, yes?
> 
> Try getting some of the yocals on the Bulls board to believe this.


I feel your pain man. Fizer, B. Miller, Artest, Brand, Crawford... they just keep chucking talent.

It's funny, whenever I argued the Knicks should have rebuilt people would say, yeah but the draft is risky, we could become another Chicago.

Sheet... Fizer, Brand, Miller, Chandler, Curry, Artest, Crawford, J Williams, Hinrich, Gordon... who am I forgetting?... but that's a contender if they held their youth and forgotten about overpaid veterans.

Good luck Kukoc, hopefully the other Cs will play large this year.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> And argueably, he'll have to keep waiting.


No man, I'm backing Lenny this year. 

This team is built on PGs and Lenny is a HOF PG. He's also an obviously leader, as he was asked (and accepted) to coach every franchise he ever played for (3). He was also a player coach, a championship coach, a coach of the year, and he's coached 9 50+ seasons. 

He's the right guy for right now.


----------

