# Isiah Can Browse K-Mart



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

> Isiah Thomas has another chance to acquire Kenyon Martin, his bum knee and his bloated contract.
> 
> With the Denver Nuggets having agreed to terms with Carmelo Anthony and Nene over the weekend, Martin never has been more available for the taking. Pairing Martin, a rugged power forward, with Eddy Curry is something Thomas has thought long and hard about since February. However, the Knicks are reluctant to part with Channing Frye, the most desired player on the roster.
> 
> ...


http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/story/432265p-364245c.html

Dolan's check book is closed, until he sees results. Isiah would be an even bigger fool to take on K-Mart who has a problem with his knees.


----------



## rebuiltknicks (May 22, 2006)

WHY WOULD WE SIGN and bum at PF... when we got two young sTUDS in lee and frye??


----------



## Pain5155 (May 28, 2006)

Maybe isiah wants to screw the knicks over.


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

If Isiah trades for K-mart, then Isiah's job goes out the window.


----------



## nbanoitall (May 21, 2004)

i have no idea what Thomas is thinking, but I can explain it to you from Denver's perspective. Basically Denver wants Frye, and will plug Crawford in at the shooting guard as well. Thomas wants to send Crawford, but not Frye. Crawford is basically a bulk shooter, so Crawford is low on the list of possible shooting guards to acquire.

Therefore, if other deals dont work out the Nuggets may trade Kmart for an expiring deal like Jalen Rose. This would bring Rose back to Denver, and the Nuggets basically rent a shooting guard for the year. And then his contract expires and the Knicks are "stuck with the bill" so to speak. Personally I've posted in the Knicks forum... I reccomend Dolan and Thomas trading for shorter contracts and letting them expire. So I wouldnt advocate this trade from the Knicks perspective. But as a Denver fan, Id be all for renting Rose for the year and then being rid of the contract.


----------



## Dean the Master (Feb 19, 2006)

In order to rebuild Knicks, the GM needs to collect expiring contracts, and stop going after the big name.
Isiah is playing the Knicks like playing video games where big names are always better.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

the nuggets can ask for frye all they want , just like zeke will probably try to get them to take francis for him , if they are going to do a deal it will most likely be for mo taylor and maybe a resigned jackie B , but i dont think martin's value is high enough for such a thing. although it wouldn't bother me at all to see butler added in if the knicks get something extra like a pick down the line.

its obvious the nuggets need to get rid of him with them making a decision on Nene.

for Mo T the risk is limited since i dont think Mo would play much for the knicks this season anyway.


----------



## nbanoitall (May 21, 2004)

Da Grinch said:


> for Mo T the risk is limited since i dont think Mo would play much for the knicks this season anyway.


Denver doesnt need a PF. Nene, Evans (RFA), Najera, Kleiza, Elson (RFA)F/C

Rose fills a need, Mo doesnt


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

nbanoitall said:


> Denver doesnt need a PF. Nene, Evans (RFA), Najera, Kleiza, Elson (RFA)F/C
> 
> Rose fills a need, Mo doesnt


jalen makes too much , but a jalen rose, malik rose for kmart and r patterson works.


----------



## nbanoitall (May 21, 2004)

Da Grinch said:


> jalen makes too much , but a jalen rose, malik rose for kmart and r patterson works.


<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=500 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=title_bl>Denver Trade Breakdown</TD></TR><TR><TD class=body_bl_np width="100%"><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=title_dt colSpan=2>Outgoing</TD></TR><TR><TD class=tdpad vAlign=top width=75>







</TD><TD class=tdpad vAlign=top width=425>Ruben Patterson
6-5 SF from Cincinnati
12.1 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 1.8 apg in 25.3 minutes</TD></TR><TR><TD class=tdpad vAlign=top width=75>







</TD><TD class=tdpad vAlign=top width=425>Kenyon Martin
6-9 PF from Cincinnati
12.9 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 1.4 apg in 27.6 minutes</TD></TR><TR><TD class=title_dt colSpan=2>Incoming</TD></TR><TR><TD class=tdpad vAlign=top width=75>







</TD><TD class=tdpad vAlign=top width=425>Jalen Rose
6-8 SG from Michigan
12.3 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 2.5 apg in 27.3 minutes</TD></TR><TR><TD class=title_gr colSpan=2>Change in team outlook: -12.7 ppg, -6.8 rpg, and -0.7 apg.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=500 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=title_bl>New York Trade Breakdown</TD></TR><TR><TD class=body_bl_np width="100%"><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=title_dt colSpan=2>Outgoing</TD></TR><TR><TD class=tdpad vAlign=top width=75>







</TD><TD class=tdpad vAlign=top width=425>Jalen Rose
6-8 SG from Michigan
12.3 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 2.5 apg in 27.3 minutes</TD></TR><TR><TD class=title_dt colSpan=2>Incoming</TD></TR><TR><TD class=tdpad vAlign=top width=75>







</TD><TD class=tdpad vAlign=top width=425>Ruben Patterson
6-5 SF from Cincinnati
12.1 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 1.8 apg in 25.3 minutes</TD></TR><TR><TD class=tdpad vAlign=top width=75>







</TD><TD class=tdpad vAlign=top width=425>Kenyon Martin
6-9 PF from Cincinnati
12.9 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 1.4 apg in 27.6 minutes</TD></TR><TR><TD class=title_gr colSpan=2>Change in team outlook: +12.7 ppg, +6.8 rpg, and +0.7 apg.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="80%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=title_s>Successful Scenario</TD></TR><TR><TD class=body_s>Due to Denver and New York being over the cap, the 25% trade rule is invoked. Denver and New York had to be no more than 125% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did happen here. This trade satisfies the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.


thats the deal I had in mind. But only if trades for Stephen Jackson and or Morris Peterson fail. And based on the trade between Dallas and Indiana, its safe to say Jackson is on the block.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

To be honest, the squad needs a player of Martin's "cut" to place in the starting lineup that helps to serve as the building block of your defense. The problem is, that I don't like Martin, his injuries, contract or skill set. It's a very risky move but I would consider it if we move other long term commitments in the process that helps clear out log jams on the team. Richardson, Jerome James and a Malik Rose for Martin would get the job done for me. Perferably, I feel that the defensive enforcer we've been looking for should come at the 3 position which isn't soldified. A guy like Gerald Wallace would be the perfect candidate to play the 3 for us but he's pretty much unavailable. His ability to block shots both on the ball and on help, would make us that much a stronger team. We've seen through Artest and Andri Kirilenko how these kind of defensive 3's could serve as the team's defensive back bone and make a significant difference.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

TwinkieFoot said:


> To be honest, the squad needs a player of Martin's "cut" to place in the starting lineup that helps to serve as the building block of your defense. The problem is, that I don't like Martin, his injuries, contract or skill set. It's a very risky move but I would consider it if we move other long term commitments in the process that helps clear out log jams on the team. Richardson, Jerome James and a Malik Rose for Martin would get the job done for me. Perferably, I feel that the defensive enforcer we've been looking for should come at the 3 position which isn't soldified. A guy like Gerald Wallace would be the perfect candidate to play the 3 for us but he's pretty much unavailable. His ability to block shots both on the ball and on help, would make us that much a stronger team. We've seen through Artest and Andri Kirilenko how these kind of defensive 3's could serve as the team's defensive back bone and make a significant difference.


That sounds all find and dandy, but I still wouldn't touch K-Mart. I was tempted when you said get rid of Jerome James but he is has roughly 25 million left on that deal. We need an extra big man to back up Curry because we may not be able to sign Butler.


----------



## nbanoitall (May 21, 2004)

based on what i read on real gm, copied from the post. I'm not sure what to thinkon one hand they might not spend the MLE, on the other hand, they are looking a few possibilities.

For some reason, half my brain says, no way Dolan lets Thomas get what he wants (Kmart), but there is this little voice in my head that says, your wrong Dolan will spend and never ever stop spending


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Kitty said:


> That sounds all find and dandy, but I still wouldn't touch K-Mart. I was tempted when you said get rid of Jerome James but he is has roughly 25 million left on that deal. We need an extra big man to back up Curry because we may not be able to sign Butler.


I think the simple answer to that one would be to sign and trade Jackie butler for the defensive center you need. I said earlier in another thread that we should look to pursue a guy like Melvin Ely since the Bobcats last year wanted more post scorers. If not, I love DJ Mbenga's game and although he has verbally committed to a contract with the Mavs might be attainable.

Trading for Martin is risky especially since I thought this was going to happen from when he first got that contract. His entire game is predicated on his athletic ability. Unfortunately for him, all athletes decline physically at 30 which he is, so you wonder what he'll really have left. It's a tough situation but the way you got to look at it is by weighing both the positives and negatives. If the trade is met under the conditions I mentioned then you lose 3 players with just as long contracts that don't do anything for the team. You get a player in return who could start for you and make a difference for the time being if healthy. The move also free's up a couple roster spaces to sign a couple more guys that may make a difference for this roster as well. The bad side of this would be getting stuck with a cripple long term but at the same time, you have the benefit of having him when he's healthy without losing much in return and doesn't hurt your roster since you still have your main guys. I still support pursing Gerald Wallace or Rashard Lewis over him.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Even when healthy, KMart is not a max contract...*

player. Look beyond the flash and look at his numbers and how he impacted games. Take the oops away and he is minimal. Kidd made him look great. He is a classic tweener even when healthy. No perimeter game and can't guard decent SFs while being overwhelmed by good bigs. Marion is twice the rebounder and can shoot the ball much better and I'm not even sure he will max out. He(Martin) will just take time from young guys that need to play and learn.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

*Re: Even when healthy, KMart is not a max contract...*

To add on to Dog's post, even some Nets fans have stated, K-Mart should thank Kidd everyday for making that max contract possible. Without Kidd he is nothing.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Even when healthy, KMart is not a max contract...*



alphaorange said:


> player. Look beyond the flash and look at his numbers and how he impacted games. Take the oops away and he is minimal. Kidd made him look great. He is a classic tweener even when healthy. No perimeter game and can't guard decent SFs while being overwhelmed by good bigs. Marion is twice the rebounder and can shoot the ball much better and I'm not even sure he will max out. He(Martin) will just take time from young guys that need to play and learn.


I'd have to differ about Martin being overwhelmed on defense but for either of us to prove that, we'd have to review a season of game tape. I'm well aware of Martin's game and what he's capable of. I ain't sugar coating anything and already know that he's not as good as most average fans thought he was with the Nets or is much of an offensive player. Despite him not being big on stats, he's a high caliber hustle player when healthy. Just as a hustle player, most of what he does, does not show up in a stat sheet. He's an athletic and mobile body that is good enough and capable enough to mask some of our deficiencies on the defensive end, particularly against penetraters getting into the paint, aggressive one on one defense and quick and athletic doubles. My whole problem with him isn't his skill set. My main problem is that I don't think he's going to be what he is for much longer, the fact that we may be recieving a skillless Allan Houston LONG TERM and the fact that we might never be able to move him when either of these things happen. He is some of what we need but as I said before, what he does could come at another spot, hopefully at the 3, where we have a vacancy.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

*Re: Even when healthy, KMart is not a max contract...*



Kitty said:


> To add on to Dog's post, even some Nets fans have stated, K-Mart should thank Kidd everyday for making that max contract possible. Without Kidd he is nothing.


Kitty, you're better than that. You're talking about a huge bunch of sour grapes there. I'm happy to go over the facts with you to prove this isn't the case.

1) He played the 04-05 season on a knee that should have had surgery before the season and still managed to score only 1.2 PPG less than the season before while shooting a higher fg% and taking a higher % of his shots from 15 ft and out than he did in 03-04.

2) In 05-06 while playing on a surgically repaired knee and ignoring doctor's advice to not play, he shot a highe fg% than 04-05 while shooting even more 15 ft plus jump shots.

3) The only stat of his that took a significant drop when moving to the Nuggets was his RPG and he did play with Camby.

4) He doesn't have a max contract. Very huge yes, but not max.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

*Re: Even when healthy, KMart is not a max contract...*



alphaorange said:


> player. Look beyond the flash and look at his numbers and how he impacted games. Take the oops away and he is minimal. Kidd made him look great. He is a classic tweener even when healthy. No perimeter game and can't guard decent SFs while being overwhelmed by good bigs. Marion is twice the rebounder and can shoot the ball much better and I'm not even sure he will max out. He(Martin) will just take time from young guys that need to play and learn.


You are off base on your assesment of Kenyon's defense. There isn't a SF or SG he can't guard and does a damn good job on all of them. Heck he even does a solid job on PGs. Anyone remember him guarding Marbury in the final minutes of the Knicks and Nets playoff series.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

*Re: Even when healthy, KMart is not a max contract...*

Another thread full of excuses, he was injured that's why he wasn't the same give me a break. I'm sticking to my original argument. Kidd makes others better, and regardless of how much he was paid even though the money he is receiving can be labeled as max money, from what I've seen since he has left the Nets organization proves to me he isn't worth a pot to....you know the rest.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

*Re: Even when healthy, KMart is not a max contract...*



Kitty said:


> Another thread full of excuses, he was injured that's why he wasn't the same give me a break. I'm sticking to my original argument. Kidd makes others better, and regardless of how much he was paid even though the money he is receiving can be labeled as max money, from what I've seen since he has left the Nets organization proves to me he isn't worth a pot to....you know the rest.


Horse ****. I'm not making excuses. I'm pointing out that the differences in his stats without Kidd aren't significant enough to label him a product of Kidd. To say otherwise is dishonest. Did Kidd make him better, hell yes, but that is just like Kidd makes Vince better.

Look, I'm certainly not arguing for him to be on the Knicks, but I find your take on him to be very off base. When you say what you've seen of him, what are you refering to? The box scores or actually watching him play?


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

*Re: Even when healthy, KMart is not a max contract...*

I still don't understand why people keep trying to link Zeke with trading for Kenyon considering that Zeke doesn't like him. Kenyon was a major part of two Nets teams that embarassed him out of the playoffs in both Indy and NY.

Anyone that has followed his career knows Zeke carries grudges for a long time.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

*Re: Even when healthy, KMart is not a max contract...*



cpawfan said:


> Horse ****. I'm not making excuses. I'm pointing out that the differences in his stats without Kidd aren't significant enough to label him a product of Kidd. To say otherwise is dishonest. Did Kidd make him better, hell yes, but that is just like Kidd makes Vince better.
> 
> Look, I'm certainly not arguing for him to be on the Knicks, but I find your take on him to be very off base. When you say what you've seen of him, what are you refering to? The box scores or actually watching him play?


 
I've been watching Kenyon since he broke his leg in the tourney as a Bearcat. I'm not buying the injury excuses, he was playing with Steph his rookie year in 00-01. As soon as Kidd came a board his average increased significantly, and has dropped ever since he left the Nets. By all acounts I don't want him on this team, not for any history he may have with the Knicks. I don't want him because I just don't think he is that good.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Come on, man*

There's a reason not many were willing to acquire Martin before the Nugs did. Actually plenty of them.
And for you to say he shot and made more 15 footers....wow. How many more? Do you have a breakdown. If not, it's just your opinion. I watched the Nets and Nugs plenty of times and he is a guy that gets lots of his points on fastbreak dunks....same as when he was in college. He is a very good defender? He's OK when healthy but he guarding any guards for very long. He's pretty much washed up. Martin is one of those guys whose entire game is based on his athleticism. When it leaves, so does his game.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

*Re: Even when healthy, KMart is not a max contract...*



cpawfan said:


> I still don't understand why people keep trying to link Zeke with trading for Kenyon considering that Zeke doesn't like him. Kenyon was a major part of two Nets teams that embarassed him out of the playoffs in both Indy and NY.
> 
> Anyone that has followed his career knows Zeke carries grudges for a long time.


Was Zeke every quoted as saying he didn't like him? I never read it nor heard it on radio. So I think that's pure speculation. It doesn't matter what team embarrassed the Knicks, if Zeke feels in his mind that a player can help this squad, it's a business first and foremost so he will make that decision based on that. We not talking about Larry Bird here, or Michael Jordan which he dislikes with a passion when he was a player.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: Even when healthy, KMart is not a max contract...*

Don't do this Isiah. Kenyon is a) not worth most of your youngsters, and b) not worth that contract absolutely destroying your books even worse than they already are. 

I'm not saying he's worthless, not by a long stretch, but his contract should keep the Knicks weary, unless they manage to trade away Steph or Franchise in the deal.


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

If I were Zeke, I would offer Steve Francis for Kenyon Martin straight up. If they don't take the deal, then fine, No one else would offer anythign to Denver anyways. If Denver is serious about trading Martin, they have to understand that no one will take his bloated contract unless they get another bloated contract in return. Zeke basically is acknowledgign that he ****ed up by acquiring so many bloated contracts and now hes gonna do his little , Oh now I want to add the "pieces" to make our team better. In the draft....In any other year..Isaiah Thomas would take the best player available, that's Marcus Williams...Not this year....Hes looking for the "pieces"


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

I'm chiming in, in a response to what both of you guys are saying. For starters, I don't believe players make other players better. I believe guys have tailored there games in a certain way that compliments another game. For instance, a low post player operates best with alot of space. They are within a defense which allows team's to collapse on them with ease (I know, I always play the post). This is why a post player works best with JUMP shooters because jump shooters keep the defense honest with their range and ability to stretch the defense. Hence, both players just make the game easier for each other by the way they play the game. Do I think one makes the other player better? No, because a player already has a given skill set. The effectiveness of that skill set can only be maxmized by finding players that compliment his game. To suggest that a player makes another player would mean that he'd expand a players skill set which is just ridiculous. For instance, Jason Kidd isn't going to help Shaq's or Duncan's free throw shooting. Jason Kidd, no matter how much he free's up a Shandon Anderson will make his jump shot any better than it already is. For example, a calculator could make Math much more easier on you. If you suck at math, a calculator isn't going to improve your ability to be good at math. You understand? 


That being said, I don't believe for a second that Martin's game did not benefit within that Nets system because it maximized his skill. If you look at the Nuggets, he had the same skill set but the system didn't maxmize it to it's best potential. Did Martin become overrated during his tenure with the Nets? Without a doubt? Can he defend swingmen? Maybe 3's during his tenure with the Nets but certainly not now. He's simply a guy that will defend the 4 and nothing else. Do I want Martin on this team? Not unless the price is right and the Nuggets seriously sweeten the deal with draft picks.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> I'm chiming in, in a response to what both of you guys are saying. For starters, I don't believe players make other players better. I believe guys have tailored there games in a certain way that compliments another game. For instance, a low post player operates best with alot of space. They are within a defense which allows team's to collapse on them with ease (I know, I always play the post). This is why a post player works best with JUMP shooters because jump shooters keep the defense honest with their range and ability to stretch the defense. Hence, both players just make the game easier for each other by the way they play the game. Do I think one makes the other player better? No, because a player already has a given skill set. The effectiveness of that skill set can only be maxmized by finding players that compliment his game. To suggest that a player makes another player would mean that he'd expand a players skill set which is just ridiculous. For instance, Jason Kidd isn't going to help Shaq's or Duncan's free throw shooting. Jason Kidd, no matter how much he free's up a Shandon Anderson will make his jump shot any better than it already is. For example, a calculator could make Math much more easier on you. If you suck at math, a calculator isn't going to improve your ability to be good at math. You understand?
> 
> 
> That being said, I don't believe for a second that Martin's game did not benefit within that Nets system because it maximized his skill. If you look at the Nuggets, he had the same skill set but the system didn't maxmize it to it's best potential. Did Martin become overrated during his tenure with the Nets? Without a doubt? Can he defend swingmen? Maybe 3's during his tenure with the Nets but certainly not now. He's simply a guy that will defend the 4 and nothing else. Do I want Martin on this team? Not unless the price is right and the Nuggets seriously sweeten the deal with draft picks.


 That's correct in theory. One player making another better is more like a perfect complement of skills, but look at it this way: Kidd was an all-star before he went to the nets, and Martin and hasn't been the player he was in New Jersey with Kidd. It looks less like a complement than it does Kidd, being an all-star point guard making Martin better.

What has to be understood is that when instances happen like this, when a player always seems to get the players around him playing better than they ever did without him, the credit is always going to be on the dominant factor in the offense/defense. 

Look at say, Keyon Dooling for example. He was on the bench in LA, got to Miami, and was suddenly one of the better backup PGs in the league, because Shaq made that possible. In the relationship between Dooling and Shaq, Shaq was always the more dominant factor. Dooling is back to mediocrity without him. Shaq's acquisition maximized his abilities, there was no true complement because Shaq was "making" "good shooters" before Dooling was in the league. 

There's no realistic theory that can credit Dooling for being a bigger factor than Shaq in their relationship, when you look at their situations now. Shaq is a champion. Dooling is in Orlando (I think), on the bench. It's hard to explain, I hope I did it well enough.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

_Dre_ said:


> That's correct in theory. One player making another better is more like a perfect complement of skills, but look at it this way: Kidd was an all-star before he went to the nets, and Martin and hasn't been the player he was in New Jersey with Kidd. It looks less like a complement than it does Kidd, being an all-star point guard making Martin better.
> 
> What has to be understood is that when instances happen like this, when a player always seems to get the players around him playing better than they ever did without him, the credit is always going to be on the dominant factor in the offense/defense.
> 
> ...


Well I can't disagree that stars have greater pull in the relationship between the two on the basketball court but that relationship, that fit, is often misunderstood in the league. Both need each other in order to succeed but most don't understand that. It confuses me personally because on one hand, these people accept the fact and even spread it that "there is no "I" in team" yet also believe that one player can change the game by themselves. Fact of the matter is that all stars need a team around them or else you wind up with talented guys like Garnett and Marbury that had had little success. Is it because there bad players? No, it's because they have not been afforded the kind of team that they need to win.

I personally believe that Dooling was a benefactor of playing within a system that featured his strong suits and played next to two all-stars Shaq and Wade. As far as Jason Kidd, you could make the argument that he never made it out of the first round without a guy like Kenyon Martin. In fact, most Kidd supporters used the arguement that he never had a big man to pass to with the Suns and why they never made it out the first round. The fact of the matter is that the Nets didn't fair all that well after Martin's departure until they got Carter and still have little going on in the post.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> Well I can't disagree that stars have greater pull in the relationship between the two on the basketball court but that relationship, that fit, is often misunderstood in the league. Both need each other in order to succeed but most don't understand that. It confuses me personally because on one hand, these people accept the fact and even spread it that "there is no "I" in team" yet also believe that one player can change the game by themselves. Fact of the matter is that all stars need a team around them or else you wind up with talented guys like Garnett and Marbury that had had little success. Is it because there bad players? No, it's because they have not been afforded the kind of team that they need to win.
> 
> I personally believe that Dooling was a benefactor of playing within a system that featured his strong suits and played next to two all-stars Shaq and Wade. As far as Jason Kidd, you could make the argument that he never made it out of the first round without a guy like Kenyon Martin. In fact, most Kidd supporters used the arguement that he never had a big man to pass to with the Suns and why they never made it out the first round. The fact of the matter is that the Nets didn't fair all that well after Martin's departure until they got Carter and still have little going on in the post.


 I think in this case you're preaching to the choir. I've never believed in any player being able to do it "by himself". 

The point with Kidd is valid, but mind you he was injured for about two years coming off that leg surgery. He's not the same as he was pre-surgery, but he's finally up to the point where he's as good as he's ever going to be again. This rise coincidentally coincided with VC coming, another guy who's had this kind of talk surrounding him. 

I do think there are players that make others better, of course they work together, but some players are undeniably bigger factors in playing relationships then their counterpart, IE my previous example.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

*Re: Even when healthy, KMart is not a max contract...*



Kitty said:


> I've been watching Kenyon since he broke his leg in the tourney as a Bearcat. I'm not buying the injury excuses, he was playing with Steph his rookie year in 00-01. As soon as Kidd came a board his average increased significantly, and has dropped ever since he left the Nets. By all acounts I don't want him on this team, not for any history he may have with the Knicks. I don't want him because I just don't think he is that good.


In the SportsIllustrated with him on the cover showing his Bad *** Yellow Boy tat he talked about how injured he really was his rookie season. So for you to attempt to compare his play with Steph to his play with Kidd isn't fair. Kenyon was far healthier his 2nd season, even with the injury inflicted by Milt.

Now as far as his averages, take a look at stats like PPS, eFG% and per 40 minutes. There isn't a dropoff in those stats away from Kidd. These aren't excuses, this is an excercise in critical analysis.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

*Re: Come on, man*



alphadog said:


> There's a reason not many were willing to acquire Martin before the Nugs did. Actually plenty of them.
> And for you to say he shot and made more 15 footers....wow. How many more? Do you have a breakdown. If not, it's just your opinion. I watched the Nets and Nugs plenty of times and he is a guy that gets lots of his points on fastbreak dunks....same as when he was in college. He is a very good defender? He's OK when healthy but he guarding any guards for very long. He's pretty much washed up. Martin is one of those guys whose entire game is based on his athleticism. When it leaves, so does his game.


Have you ever heard of 82games.com ??? Last season 54% of his shots were jump shots and 47% the season before. Sure he is very effective in transition, but your memory isn't fully lining up with the advanced stats. Throughout his NBA career, he has averaged 2 dunks per game; hardly the majority of his points.

As far as your opinion of him being washed up, well that's your opinion. Granted a common opinion these days, but one I scoff at when you look at the details and the facts.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

*Re: Even when healthy, KMart is not a max contract...*



Kitty said:


> Was Zeke every quoted as saying he didn't like him? I never read it nor heard it on radio. So I think that's pure speculation. It doesn't matter what team embarrassed the Knicks, if Zeke feels in his mind that a player can help this squad, it's a business first and foremost so he will make that decision based on that. We not talking about Larry Bird here, or Michael Jordan which he dislikes with a passion when he was a player.


Do I have a direct quote no. Do I have it 3rd hand from a person I trust, yes. So feel free to believe or not believe.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Twinkie...*

You have the art of the written word, for sure. You should write political speeches because after all that eloquence has poured forth you have said basically nothing.  
Of course no player improves another player from a skill set POV. However, I think that phrase is being taken far too literally. What is meant is that great players make other players MORE EFFECTIVE by tailoring their own game to do so. I agree with what you say, however, I think you are simply saying what others meant to say. 

Playing the post myself, I give you the thumbs up on having shooters with range on your team. If you can score down low and have no outside help, you're soon to be seeing doubles...and triples if neccessary.

Going back to another post I would just like to add that giving a coach significant responsibility for indivdual player improvement is not valid as a whole. It is a case by case deal. MJ became the player he ended up being while playing for Jackson. Does that mean Phil made him what he was? NO way. Anyone watching his career knows Jordan had everything inside him to be what he was. He needed only time...and a proper supporting cast. Jackson, I'm certain added to him, but Jordan wouold have been great no matter what. It is my opinion that most great ones need only an opportunity.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

*Re: Even when healthy, KMart is not a max contract...*



cpawfan said:


> Do I have a direct quote no. Do I have it 3rd hand from a person I trust, yes. So feel free to believe or not believe.


I just find that very odd, because this is the media capital of the world. If Isiah was to use the bathroom without washing his hands it would have been posted in the back of the sports page. I just don't believe it, and I will contact my own sources regarding this but I highly doubt he is going to say that Isiah didn't like K-Mart because of the playoffs. That sounds relatively stupid to me.


----------



## Krstic All-Star (Mar 9, 2005)

*Re: Even when healthy, KMart is not a max contract...*



Kitty said:


> I just find that very odd, because this is the media capital of the world. If Isiah was to use the bathroom without washing his hands it would have been posted in the back of the sports page. I just don't believe it, and I will contact my own sources regarding this but I highly doubt he is going to say that Isiah didn't like K-Mart because of the playoffs. That sounds relatively stupid to me.


That would be very much out of character, I agree. As for washing his hands, Cablevision has hand-washers in all executive bathrooms. So that's no problem. 

Is this all a smokescreen?


----------



## nbanoitall (May 21, 2004)

jayisthebest88 said:


> If I were Zeke, I would offer Steve Francis for Kenyon Martin straight up. If they don't take the deal, then fine, No one else would offer anythign to Denver anyways."


thats incorrect


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Twinkie...*



alphadog said:


> You have the art of the written word, for sure. You should write political speeches because after all that eloquence has poured forth you have said basically nothing.
> Of course no player improves another player from a skill set POV. However, I think that phrase is being taken far too literally. What is meant is that great players make other players MORE EFFECTIVE by tailoring their own game to do so. I agree with what you say, however, I think you are simply saying what others meant to say.
> 
> Playing the post myself, I give you the thumbs up on having shooters with range on your team. If you can score down low and have no outside help, you're soon to be seeing doubles...and triples if neccessary.
> ...


The fact of the matter is that you could make the argument that any skilled player only needs the oppurtunity. Do I think Jordan was a talented player? Yeah. Do I think that he would have won championships without Phil Jackson? NO. People tend to only remember the good times and not the bad. I remember a time not to long ago where people actually accused Jordan as being selfish and the reason why the Bulls were not winning big. That's why his first championship brought about so much emotion from Jordan shown crying with the championship trophy. The fact of the matter is that the Bulls roster remained pretty consistent throughout Jordan's career so I doubt the "proper supporting cast," was the reason why he had nothing to show early on. Alot of the players he played with had long before or after established that they could play at a high level without Michael so let's not give the man so much credit. After all, the Bulls did make it to the Conference Finals in 94 and went to game 7 against the Knicks before losing in the final seconds WITHOUT His Airness. It says alot about the strength of the squad because alot of teams in today's league would not win 50 games without their best player let alone the "best player in the league."

As far as the whole issue about players making other players better, I have to completely disagree with the notion that people were saying what I've been saying. For instance, take the wildly held perception that Jordan is the greatest player to play the game because he won without nothing. As I mentioned earlier, the team won 50 games WITHOUT him after he retired during the preseason. Forget the fact for the moment that he left the team, and remember that they had had the plays on both offense and defense set heading into the season before he retired. That means, they had to totally restructure the way they played a few weeks before the start of the season and they still came out being one of the best team's in the league. Another perfect example of people's misconception of basketball would be the debate about "winners" and "losers." Almost every basketball hancho buy's into this nonsense, yet the validation of a player's career simply should not in anyway be determined by his team's wins. When the hell has one man been responsible for being the offense of a team and covering 5 guys on defense? This is a team sport obviously and it takes a team to win. This is why I feel it is completely ridiculous to say that a player just isn't a "winner" because his supporting cast are filled with scrubs. Perfect example, I'm pretty solid passer out of the post. When I was younger and played ball, alot of the guys simply couldn't hit layups no matter how much attention I drew on offense and freed them up. We won maybe 3 games out of 20 that year despite me being voted an all-star. The very following year, my team won the championship and I won MOP (Most Outstanding Player). You mean to tell me that I was a "loser" or a "cancer" on my team because I was on a team with a group of guys that couldn't hit layups or do anything of significance bar a few? If so, then how the hell did I experience so much success the following year? We see time and time again this theory of "winners" and "losers" put to rest every year when guys who have been on perennial losing teams get traded to successful teams and help them win big. Perfect example would be Jason Terry of the Dallas Mavericks. Since the moment he was drafted by the Hawks, they been associated with nothing but loses. He joins the Mavericks and all of a sudden they make the Finals and suceed in a role that Jesus Christ Jr. Aka Steve Nash couldn't without the star studded cast of role players Nash had. Again, many people still have this belief that one player makes another better and these examples prove that.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Again...wow*

This will be disjointed so stay with me....sorry. I'm no Jordan fan. I thought he was great but got a lot of calls at critical times that weren't correct. He did NOT have a veteran team around him to help durring the champ years. Pippen+Grant=younger, Kerr, Wennington, Rodman, Harper, etc were close in age. Cartwright was older but he came later. Bulls should have beaten the Knicks.....bad call on Hubie's shot. Bulls won when Pistons got too old, not because of Jax. They were closing in with Collins...and he was no guru. Not sure why MJ was crying but I would guess it has less to do with proving he wasn't the reason they had not previously, and more to do with being NBA champions.....but I don't have the apparent connections you do. You will never hear me say MJ won with nothing. In fact, I have posted several times here stating the quality of his cast. Your statements about winners and losers is very dramatic and way over the top. No way you can make a blanket statement like you did. Of course, no one player covers all players on the opposing team...nor does he score all the points....BUT....if a player disappears everytime a big shot is needed, despite scoring all game long...and if he doesn't play defense....and if he is a cancer in the locker room, it is fair to say he is a loser. It is not about wins and losses but how that in what ways that player contributes to them. In the case of marbury, it is not about the numbers, but rather how, when, and under what circumstances he got them. Not to get lost is how the team reacts to him. So far in his career, he has been unable to rally a team around him to win games consistently.

Finally......you honestly believe Nash would not have lead the Mavs to equal success? There were reasons he wasn't signed, but it wasn't because they thought he couldn't win. Financial, baby.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Again...wow*



alphaorange said:


> This will be disjointed so stay with me....sorry. I'm no Jordan fan. I thought he was great but got a lot of calls at critical times that weren't correct. He did NOT have a veteran team around him to help durring the champ years. Pippen+Grant=younger, Kerr, Wennington, Rodman, Harper, etc were close in age. Cartwright was older but he came later. Bulls should have beaten the Knicks.....bad call on Hubie's shot. Bulls won when Pistons got too old, not because of Jax. They were closing in with Collins...and he was no guru. Not sure why MJ was crying but I would guess it has less to do with proving he wasn't the reason they had not previously, and more to do with being NBA champions.....but I don't have the apparent connections you do. You will never hear me say MJ won with nothing. In fact, I have posted several times here stating the quality of his cast. Your statements about winners and losers is very dramatic and way over the top. No way you can make a blanket statement like you did. Of course, no one player covers all players on the opposing team...nor does he score all the points....BUT....if a player disappears everytime a big shot is needed, despite scoring all game long...and if he doesn't play defense....and if he is a cancer in the locker room, it is fair to say he is a loser. It is not about wins and losses but how that in what ways that player contributes to them. In the case of marbury, it is not about the numbers, but rather how, when, and under what circumstances he got them. Not to get lost is how the team reacts to him. So far in his career, he has been unable to rally a team around him to win games consistently.
> 
> Finally......you honestly believe Nash would not have lead the Mavs to equal success? There were reasons he wasn't signed, but it wasn't because they thought he couldn't win. Financial, baby.



Timeout. Weren't you the same guy that just argued earlier with me that talent is more important than experience with the whole Mark Jackson vs Jamal Tinsley debate? All of a sudden now, experience means more than talent when it comes to winning games? I think you seriously don't understand how valueable Phil Jackson was to that franchise. You are correct when you said they were becoming better as a team. But you also didn't notice or mention the fact that the East seriously got better and caused the Bulls to recess at one point. Under Collins, they went from a winning percentage of .610 and just 4 games back from 1st in the division during the 87-88 season to .573 and 16 games back from 1st during the 88-89 season. Part of that wasn't because they got worse but everyone else got better. The Knicks went from a sub .500 team at .463 to a contender with a .634 record. Sixers went from .439 to .561. The Pistons from a .659 team to a .768 team. The Cavs from a .512 team to .695 team. Hawks from .610 to .634. Bucks from a .512 to a .598 team. I believe this prompted the coaching change from Collins to Jackson who ultimately lead the Bulls to a .671 record, 2nd best in the East and ultimately to a title the following year. Sounds to me like had Jackson not shown up there would have been some serious problems winning those titles with the East in general becoming much more younger and stronger. As far as you recognizing the quality of Bulls, that's great but the fact of the matter is the vast majority doesn't. Those are the people I am refering to.

As far as the winner and loser thing, it's far from being over the top. Somehow a player is a loser because he can't finish out games? No, he's just not a closer. It's like saying in baseball that a Roger Clemens isn't all that because he can't finish a game. The fact of the matter is that as a star player, you take a huge beating throughout a game as defense's focus on you. In some cases, your game makes it extremely hard to come up with big shots down the stretch because your game operates inside the teeth of the defense. Perfect example would be KG whose an extraordinary player but has problems hitting clutch shots because the defense forces the ball out of his hands and there's simply nothing he can do about that. Back-court players on the other hand have much more space to operate under because the defense doesn't have that kind of ability to collapse on them. Again, to call a player like that a "loser" is unfounded especially since he puts team's in the position to win games in the first place.

And yeah, I don't believe Nash would have ever done anything remotely close to what he's doing with the Suns, with the Mavs. His time spent with the Mavericks and the fact that they became progressively worse with him still there shows the fact that he wasn't going to have the same success he is with the Suns and their players who fit his style of play much better. The fact they didn't resign him is telling and the fact that the Mavericks beat them in the first place despite having a similar team in terms of talent, is telling. Don't tell me it was just financial because you lose a player that's MVP caliber in return for Erick Dampier.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*You're out there, Twinkie*

I respect your opinions but what the hell are you basing them on? Collins was fired because MJ wanted him gone. It was common knowledge. The reason he hired him in Washington was so he could control the team from his spot as owner. This was also widely speculated and generally accepted. 

I don't know why you stand up for Marbury while dissing Nash because there probably is not a GM in the league that would trade Nash for Marbury and evaluating talent and fit is what they do.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: You're out there, Twinkie*



alphadog said:


> I respect your opinions but what the hell are you basing them on? Collins was fired because MJ wanted him gone. It was common knowledge. The reason he hired him in Washington was so he could control the team from his spot as owner. This was also widely speculated and generally accepted.
> 
> I don't know why you stand up for Marbury while dissing Nash because there probably is not a GM in the league that would trade Nash for Marbury and evaluating talent and fit is what they do.


As for the speculation that MJ didn't like Collins, I heard they were actually pretty close which is why he hired him as head coach with the Wizards. I mean, there are/were plenty of guys that would be willing to be puppet cpaches to MJ so why would you hire a guy you don't like?

Also, let's get this straight, I respect Nash's game without a doubt. In fact, I give him his just credit but I'm not foolish enough like some that almost make him a diety. I've been playing ball and watching ball long enough to realize how the game operates to not go out their like an idiot and repeat what sports commentators have to say in order to drum up ratings for their stations and sponsors. Most of those dudes are either up there from connections, personality or because their pretty faces. I'm not trying to say that I know everything or more than they do because there are quite a few commentators whose opinion I value. That being said, I just feel they get it wrong with Marbury alot because it's just easy to go with the popular opinion. It's never been me because I like to rely on facts. Do I think Marbury is better than Nash? Do I think Nash is better than Marbury? To be honest, I think the two can't be compared because their two different monsters as I've been trying to point out for some time. Aside from being PG's they operate on a completely different tangent so you simply can't compare them. What I know for a fact is that both guys have the talent to change the game but have to have the right players around them as anyone would. Sometimes, players simply aren't blessed to be in situations where they do find those kind of guys. Let's hope this isn't the case for Marbury because it would be a waste of a fruitful career.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: You're out there, Twinkie*



alphadog said:


> I respect your opinions but what the hell are you basing them on? Collins was fired because MJ wanted him gone. It was common knowledge. The reason he hired him in Washington was so he could control the team from his spot as owner. This was also widely speculated and generally accepted.
> 
> I don't know why you stand up for Marbury while dissing Nash because there probably is not a GM in the league that would trade Nash for Marbury and evaluating talent and fit is what they do.


actually collins was fired for an attempt to get Jerry krause fired .

he wanted brad sellers traded and krause wanted to hold onto him a bit longer so collins went over krause's head to reinsdorf .

reinsdorf never cared for collins from the beginning he was strictly going on krause's opinion to whom he is extremely loyal....so after the season krause fired him and put in the guy who he thought was the heir apparent anyway ....Phil Jackson whom he forced on collins staff a couple of years earlier.

collins might have lasted a year or 2 longer but his lack of patience and back stabbing behavior led to his demise. your common knowledge is wrong as has been since confirmed by collins, reinsdorf krause, jackson and jordan.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: You're out there, Twinkie*



Da Grinch said:


> actually collins was fired for an attempt to get Jerry krause fired .
> 
> he wanted brad sellers traded and krause wanted to hold onto him a bit longer so collins went over krause's head to reinsdorf .
> 
> ...



Thank you for the words of wisdom. I actually never knew that personally. Thanks for giving me better insight to the Bulls situation back then.


----------



## MrCharisma (Feb 6, 2005)

> An NBA source said Isiah Thomas had a conversation recently with Denver about Kenyon Martin but is completely turned off because the Nuggets only want expiring contracts, unwilling to take back a big contract such as Steve Francis'. Thomas wants no part of adding another $70 million in payroll unless he can shed Francis' or Jerome James' pacts.


link


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

That's not Isiah talking, that's Dolan saying....yep Isiah the check book is still close now get me more wins or you're fired.


----------

