# Knicks Actively Looking For A Shooter



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

> Knicks president Donnie Walsh is busy looking for a shooter for Mike D'Antoni after originally wanting the Clips' top draft pick last June, Eric Gordon, to be included in the Zach Randolph deal that netted the Knicks Tim Thomas and Cuttino Mobley. Walsh didn't press the issue on Gordon, but the Clips weren't about to give him up. If Mobley has to retire because of his heart condition, the Knicks stand to save around $12 million. Incidentally, Mobley didn't have any heart issues when he passed the Clippers' physical last summer.


http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/columnists/lawrence/index.html

::sigh:: We wouldn't be in this predicament if Walsh would have done his homework.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Weren't you one of the big advocates of tearing this team down and rebuilding? If you were, Walsh is definitely in the process of doing that and actually keeping the team competitive in the process.

I personally think the guy that we should look at is Marco Bellineli. He would have helped make the Crawford trade worth wild because of just how much of a fit he is in this system. He reminds me a bit of Manu Ginobli but not nearly as good a ball handler (although he has run a little point in the past). His game relies pretty much on moving without the ball and taking shots along with the occasion shake down on an isolation play. He is mediocre to terrible defensively (although he shows effort). I feel the Warriors are willing to give him up, so why not give him a try? He would probably be the biggest wild card available and have very little to lose but everything to gain.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

Rebuilding does not mean you don't have a shooter on this team that's _not_ rebuilding that's stupidity.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*You folks are amazing....*

If someone offered to you that the Knicks would be one game under .500 and in the 8th spot right now with injuries to multiple key players, you would have jumped at it. As it stands all you do is complain about what YOU perceive as management's faults. If you say you expected more, you'd be lying. Not to late to say you were wrong and jump on board.......


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

Anyway, back to my topic:



> The Knicks received a $1,369,920 trade exception in the Renaldo Balkman trade with Denver, which brought back a second-round pick. They can get an extra $100,000 if they use it, which means they could use up to $1,469,920 to acquire a player with the exception. You can not combine the exception with a player to acquire a larger contract (say, take Malik Rose's expiring contract and add the exception to acquire a player making $9 million). The exception could land you Sergio Rodriguez ($1,048,800) if the Blazers are interested. Donnie Walsh suggested the Knicks have a second trade exception (also minimal) which I'm trying to figure out.
> 
> * - I'll mention this again as I did in the previous blog: the Knicks could consider offering Malik Rose's expiring contract ($7.6 million) for Jerry Stackhouse ($7 million), who is recovering from a sore heel but has been given the green light by Dallas to seek a trade to a better situation where he could find more playing time. The Knicks get an athletic, scoring two, who has a contract that -- all together now -- expires in 2010 and the Mavs get salary relief a year early with Rose, who can also help their frontcourt depth.
> 
> ...


http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/basketball/knicks/blog/


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

USSKittyHawk said:


> Rebuilding does not mean you don't have a shooter on this team that's _not_ rebuilding that's stupidity.


Actually, rebuilding is just that; you sacrifice being good in the present for hopes of something in the future. Most teams generally go about rebuilding by shedding long term commitments and building through the draft and inevitabily free agency, which is exactly what we're doing. Besides, I don't recall us having shooters before Walsh/D'Antoni so you really can't miss something you never had.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

USSKittyHawk said:


> Anyway, back to my topic:
> 
> 
> 
> http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/basketball/knicks/blog/


I'd definitely go after Stackhouse but I doubt the Mavs give him up for just Malik Rose. We'd probably need at least cash and a draft pick involved in the deal since the guy can still put up close to 20ppg if need be. I like the prospect of Serigo Rodriquez, who I suggest the Knicks look into this offseason but I feel pursuing Marco Belleneli trumps them all.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

TwinkieFoot said:


> Actually, rebuilding is just that; you sacrifice being good in the present for hopes of something in the future. Most teams generally go about rebuilding by shedding long term commitments and *building through the draft* and inevitabily free agency, which is exactly what we're doing. Besides,I don't recall us having shooters before Walsh/D'Antoni so you really can't miss something you never had.


Again, I'm talking about *this *deal that didn't work out now we are scrabbing to find another shooting guard! Since Mobley may not be able to work out for us, but I'm hoping that it will change. Walsh should have done a better job in trying to get a guard to fill Crawford's spot because he basically traded Zach for Tim Thomas so far. That's what I'm saying, now if you don't mind I rather get back to my topic in obtaining what's out there in terms of guards. Lastly, building through the draft is a great idea, but I would have rather have someone who could have helped us *now,* and not hoping and praying for projects to pan out and become the next Dirk like so many people claim.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

USSKittyHawk said:


> Again, I'm talking about *this *deal that didn't work out now we are scrabbing to find another shooting guard! Since Mobley may not be able to work out for us, but I'm hoping that it will change. Walsh should have done a better job in trying to get a guard to fill Crawford's spot because he basically traded Zach for Tim Thomas so far. That's what I'm saying, now if you don't mind I rather get back to my topic in obtaining what's out there in terms of guards. Lastly, building through the draft is a great idea, but I would have rather have someone who could have helped us *now,* and not hoping and praying for projects to pan out and become the next Dirk like so many people claim.


You don't trade one of the best low post scorers who is only 26-27 years old because you expect to get better. The move was a salary dump and to that end, it has worked out exactly how the front office wanted it to; we got what Walsh has declared he'd pursue since he was first hired and that is financial flexibility at any cost. We do need a 2 guard but Richardson has been doing a good enough job and may have a medical exception depending on how the whole Mobley situation works out. If not, we have more than enough time to trade for a 2 guard using the glut of big men we have (Eddy Curry anyone?).

P.S., you wanting an immediate big impact draft pick is generally what 11 of the first 14 teams in the league want but seldom get. Good things do come to those who wait, so you can have that impact player soon enough.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

^ Waiting since Ewing left, that's long enough. BTW Walsh stated the trade was good for salary, but he also stated that he wanted to remain competitve as well. You don't get competive by trading for a player who may not play for you at all, that's the bottom line. Richardson had a good game last night, but he is far from good and consistent, I don't know what games you been watching, but you need to wear glasses, when watching them.


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> We do need a 2 guard but Richardson has been doing a good enough job


No he hasnt. He has had good spots and a good game once in a blue moon but he is no more then a bench player at this point in his career. He misses the most wide open three pointers/jumpers on the team. Half the time he cant throw the ball in the ocean.For what ever reason he gets a pass from fans and the media.(Inculing myself from time to time)


Q​Good leader in the locker room
OK defense
Bad shooter
Bad creating off he dribble
Not clutch​


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

USSKittyHawk said:


> ^ Waiting since Ewing left, that's long enough. BTW Walsh stated the trade was good for salary, but he also stated that he wanted to remain competitve as well. You don't get competive by trading for a player who may not play for you at all, that's the bottom line. Richardson had a good game last night, but he is far from good and consistent, I don't know what games you been watching, but you need to wear glasses, when watching them.


LOL, I never leave home without my glasses. I never said Richardson was going to make the all-star team for us. All I said is that right now, he's "good enough" stand-in because he does not negatively affect a game for us. He's very much a role player and does his job of playing excellent defense, keeping the offensive continuity, and taking shots within his game and within the offense. Those temporary explosions he has are nice and even welcomed but I'll never get him confused with anything but a role player; then again there is nothing wrong with being a starting role player since every winning team needs them.

P.S., if you honestly thought Walsh made the move in order to be competitive, then its beyond my ability to begin to save you... There's a little thing called PR that is generally spun in order to keep revenue up while he develops his plan to clear cap space.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Truknicksfan said:


> No he hasnt. He has had good spots and a good game once in a blue moon but he is no more then a bench player at this point in his career. He misses the most wide open three pointers/jumpers on the team. Half the time he cant throw the ball in the ocean.For what ever reason he gets a pass from fans and the media.(Inculing myself from time to time)
> 
> 
> Q​Good leader in the locker room
> ...


Again, I don't recall ever stating Richardson was an all-star caliber 2 guard. I do recall saying he's good enough to fill in but that we still need another starting 2 guard, which you conveniently left out of that quote. Richardson is a role player but every winning team has those in their starting lineup. He certainly does not lose games for us, so I think that would qualify as someone good enough to fill in since he does not put us at any disadvantage by playing him.


----------



## pr1ncejeffie (Nov 17, 2008)

Can we somehow get Mike Miller?


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

Save me, please homeboy you need to save yourself first, from your own bs post. PR my ***, you would co-sign dude if he stab someone in the street, I'm done with you.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

pr1ncejeffie said:


> Can we somehow get Mike Miller?


I wouldn't mind that deal, we need someone bad. The kids are being overworked and Duhon and company are logging crazy minutes.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

USSKittyHawk said:


> Save me, please homeboy you need to save yourself first, from your own bs post. PR my ***, you would co-sign dude if he stab someone in the street, I'm done with you.


LOL, for someone that seems to have so much to say to people, you sure don't take the same treatment well. Feel free to do as you please.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

^ zzzzz more bs posting keep drinking the kool-aid like a follower.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

pr1ncejeffie said:


> Can we somehow get Mike Miller?


I doubt the Wolves will sit down and talk to us about moving him. The Wolves oddly seem to think that they can be competitive in this league as currently constructed and we don't have anything that will be better than Mike Miller. I'd be delighted to bring him in though because he's a perfect fit for us; I was lobbying for either him or Pietrus during the offseason.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

USSKittyHawk said:


> ^ zzzzz more bs posting keep drinking the kool-aid like a follower.


LOL, I don't recall being the one who believed Walsh when he said his objective was to remain competitive by dealing one of the primer low post scorers in the league for two 30+ year old role playing veterans. But then again, feel free to think however you please


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

TwinkieFoot said:


> LOL, I don't recall being the one who believed Walsh when he said his objective was to remain competitive by dealing one of the primer low post scorers in the league for two 30+ year old role playing veterans. But then again, feel free to think however you please.


Handle your business, but do it in PM's if you have a problem. 
-USSKittyHawk

Have a great night.


----------



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

How about Joe Crawford from the D League? I know the Lakers sent him down, but he's leading the league in scoring and shooting well.


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> He certainly does not lose games for us, so I think that would qualify as someone good enough to fill in since he does not put us at any disadvantage by playing him.


How does missing wide open threes not help you lose? Maybe if scores more then 8 points against altanta we would have won.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Truknicksfan said:


> How does missing wide open threes not help you lose? Maybe if scores more then 8 points against altanta we would have won.


The guy converts 3 pointers at a pretty high clip of 36%. He does shoot quite a bit (within the construct of the offense and his game), so he's bound to miss a few gimme's once in the while. That only makes him human and your average NBA role player.


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> The guy converts 3 pointers at a pretty high clip of 36%. He does shoot quite a bit (within the construct of the offense and his game), so he's bound to miss a few gimme's once in the while. That only makes him human and your average NBA role player.


He misses a lot of gimme's. Most of his shots are wide open. So 36% isnt too great considering how many of them are wide open. Plus Al harrinton, Nate Robinson, and Duhon are all shooting better % beind the arc and their shots tend to be better defended. I like Q, but he is no more then a bench player plain and simple. But at this point we have no better alternitives, which is the point of this thread lol.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Truknicksfan said:


> He misses a lot of gimme's. Most of his shots are wide open. So 36% isnt too great considering how many of them are wide open. Plus Al harrinton, Nate Robinson, and Duhon are all shooting better % beind the arc and their shots tend to be better defended. I like Q, but he is no more then a bench player plain and simple. But at this point we have no better alternitives, which is the point of this thread lol.


You say he misses too many gimme's, I say he's on par with the rest of the league at worst. The only way we could legitimately dispute that is by watching a game together, which is not going to happen. All I know is that we must have been playing some of the worst defensive teams in the league if they are leaving a guy that converts 36% of the shots he get's from 3 land because it's a high clip (especially with the number of shots he gets) regardless of whether they are contested or not.


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> You say he misses too many gimme's, I say he's on par with the rest of the league at worst. The only way we could legitimately dispute that is by watching a game together, which is not going to happen. All I know is that we must have been playing some of the worst defensive teams in the league if they are leaving a guy that converts 36% of the shots he get's from 3 land because it's a high clip (especially with the number of shots he gets) regardless of whether they are contested or not.


I dont need to watch a game with you to know that Q gets the most open shots on the team and misses too many of them. Trust me I watch most every game of the season twice. 

Hes open so much because he dosnt handle the ball at all. So when ever Duhon drives or someone else drives Q man falls off him to help and they swing the ball to him and hes wide open.

You dont watch the games if I have to spell this out for you.



> converts 36% of the shots he get's from 3 land because it's a high clip (especially with the number of shots he gets) regardless of whether they are contested or not


36% is not a high clip uncontested.....

Theres nothing to argue here, Q is a good bench player, but is starting because of the sheer lack of talent of our team. Put Q on a team thats playing to win a title this year and hes on the bench. He does little to actually help you win.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Truknicksfan said:


> I dont need to watch a game with you to know that Q gets the most open shots on the team and misses too many of them. Trust me I watch most every game of the season twice.
> 
> Hes open so much because he dosnt handle the ball at all. So when ever Duhon drives or someone else drives Q man falls off him to help and they swing the ball to him and hes wide open.
> 
> ...


Not sure what games you been watching but Q gets as many uncontested looks as the rest of the Knicks. It's the staple of the offense; moving bodies and the ball to eventually find people open. Besides that fact, Richardson drives quite a bit and mixes that up with post up moves. He's far from the pure spot shooter that you attempt to make him out to be. Hell, all you had to do was watch the Bulls game today to know that.


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> Richardson drives quite a bit and mixes that up with post up moves. He's far from the pure spot shooter that you attempt to make him out to be. Hell, all you had to do was watch the Bulls game today to know that.


Its obvivious you dont watch most knick games. I knew there was a reason you were not getting it.

Q drives quite a bit?!?!?!?! are you serious?? Cylde and all them are always talking about how all he does is spot shot and should drive to the basket more. Again you dont watch Knick games if you dont know that.

BTW I have watched all but one knicks game this year and he has posted-up maybe a total of 5 times all season.

P.S that dunk by Q was sick last night though.:clap:


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Truknicksfan said:


> Its obvivious you dont watch most knick games. I knew there was a reason you were not getting it.
> 
> Q drives quite a bit?!?!?!?! are you serious?? Cylde and all them are always talking about how all he does is spot shot and should drive to the basket more. Again you dont watch Knick games if you dont know that.
> 
> ...


Yeah...I don't watch Knick games because I disagree with you; a person who clearly has a track record for getting things right when it comes to basketball. All you have to do was watch last nights game to get a good understanding of the looks that Richardson tries to create. He does shoot a lot of 3's, he leads the team in them but that doesn't mean he lives on the perimeter. Our offense is designed for guys to take a bunch of long distance shots while on transition from a break, so it really comes as no surprise to me. In fact, it just so happens that all his shots either come from long range or close to the rim (particularly when not on a break), with very little occuring in the mid-range game. I'm not surprised by that in the slightest considering his lack of height, agility and leaping ability (in spite of last nights monstrous dunk).


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Kopono is available from what I hear... he'd be a nice weapon in that Knick offense.


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> Yeah...I don't watch Knick games because I disagree with you; a person who clearly has a track record for getting things right when it comes to basketball. All you have to do was watch last nights game to get a good understanding of the looks that Richardson tries to create. He does shoot a lot of 3's, he leads the team in them but that doesn't mean he lives on the perimeter. Our offense is designed for guys to take a bunch of long distance shots while on transition from a break, so it really comes as no surprise to me. In fact, it just so happens that all his shots either come from long range or close to the rim (particularly when not on a break), with very little occuring in the mid-range game. I'm not surprised by that in the slightest considering his lack of height, agility and leaping ability (in spite of last nights monstrous dunk).


No you dont watch knick games because you dont know Q's style. I dont know if the track record thing was a crack at me or not but I tink I have a good track record. 

All im saying is Q is a bench player, and we do need a shooter.(Cause Q is not it)


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

Dornado said:


> Kopono is available from what I hear... he'd be a nice weapon in that Knick offense.


Interesting Dornado, I wonder what they will ask for. We really need bodies and we need them bad regardless if Nate comes back soon or not we will still short handed.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

Truknicksfan said:


> No you dont watch knick games because you dont know Q's style. I dont know if the track record thing was a crack at me or not but I tink I have a good track record.
> 
> All im saying is Q is a bench player, and we do need a shooter.(Cause Q is not it)


You saw that performance tonight against the Nets, he had wide open shots and couldn't hit a damn thing. Love his leadership skills, he leads by example, but he needs to come off the bench way too inconsistent. 4 of 16 from the field 0 for 6 from down town against the Nets and that is why we really need another shooter.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

USSKittyHawk said:


> You saw that performance tonight against the Nets, he had wide open shots and couldn't hit a damn thing. Love his leadership skills, he leads by example, but he needs to come off the bench way too inconsistent. 4 of 16 from the field 0 for 6 from down town against the Nets and that is why we really need another shooter.


LOL, good job picking up one of his worst games offensively to prove a point especially with it coming off a back to back.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

What about signing Fred Jones if a roster spot opens up? He's turnover prone but plays defense, shoots the 3 and can take the ball to the hole; definitely a fit in this offense.


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> LOL, good job picking up one of his worst games offensively to prove a point especially with it coming off a back to back.


Hes had plenty of games like this throughout season.




> What about signing Fred Jones if a roster spot opens up? He's turnover prone but plays defense, shoots the 3 and can take the ball to the hole; definitely a fit in this offense.


Well a roster spot did open up, I dont know if the knicks want to sign Fred Jones though. But we still have two major needs, a real shooter, and a defensive player/bigman.


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

What about stackhouse guys?


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

Truknicksfan said:


> What about stackhouse guys?


Stackhouse isn't bad I'll take him, we need bodies. I just wonder what Cuban and co. would want for him. I think it all boils down to what kind of deals we can make without having to give up the kitchen sink because it would defeat the purpose.


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

What about Larry Hughes???? He seems very under the radar, I heard he's quite unhappy in Chi-Town.


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> What about Larry Hughes???? He seems very under the radar, I heard he's quite unhappy in Chi-Town.


Twinkie brought him up, as I too have thought about him. I just dont know.....hes a werid player. Hes very hot and cold.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Truknicksfan said:


> Hes had plenty of games like this throughout season.
> 
> 
> 
> Well a roster spot did open up, I dont know if the knicks want to sign Fred Jones though. But we still have two major needs, a real shooter, and a defensive player/bigman.


We're simply going to have to agree to disagree about Q-Richardson concerning certain aspects of his game.

As for Fred Jones, he may be a volume shooter but he'll knock down open shots as a natural scorer if we're pressed for assets. 

As for your defensive big man, Mikki Moore would be an excellent fit. He's lengthy, agile, and most importantly changes shots. With his ability to work particularly well in the pick and roll like he did with the Nets and his ability to shoot jump shots, I think he'd be great for us and at a cheap price. He shouldn't cost to much in return with the Kings continually limiting his role and their need for a veteran 4. I think Tim Thomas fits the bill who I'd give up for him in spite of liking Thomas' prospects in this system. 

Another guy who I would keep an eye out for is Darius Songalia who was a double double threat and excellent passer with the Kings. I haven't seen much of his game recently but your ability to shoot jump shots does not disappear all of a sudden and he's always had an excellent feel (for a role player) of where the basket is. I could see him as a center on our team.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Truknicksfan said:


> Twinkie brought him up, as I too have thought about him. I just dont know.....hes a werid player. Hes very hot and cold.


Jerry Stackhouse or Larry Hughes?


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Don't like Jones...*

Just not a good enough offensive player for this system and when we struggle, we struggle because we shoot poorly. Can't afford a defensive player to fill a spot we need a real shooter for. Hughes can do both. I don't care for him either but the guy can score and d it up when inclined. He would be in heaven with this system. Songalia is another forward. Don't need another 4 playing the 5. We have enough forwards. Micky, I think, would be a good fit, too. Nice little jumper he has as well.


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

The thing with Hughes is that he's not a three point shooter, although he's been shooting threes like no more tomorrow as of late (he's shot an average of 4.9 treys in the last 10 games) and he's been making them (47% this season, a career high). So I guess in his defense, he would work rather well statistically seeing as he's been enjoying shooting threes but at the same time also plays defense well.


----------

