# Jamal brags about being on a winning team



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> On his first day of practice with the Knicks, Jamal Crawford told reporters, ''Now, I'm on a winning team,'' twice in a 30-second span. *The Knicks finished four games under .500 last season....*


 :whatever:


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> :whatever:


he probably meant winning organization. Anyways it's more winning than he did with the Bulls.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

He said it twice.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

He is not on a winning team yet, they actually have to win with him on the team for him to be on a winning team.


----------



## chefboyarg (Apr 14, 2004)

what's the big deal? even elton brand said some nice things (like being so happy to leave a losing environment) when he went to his new team, the clippers


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

Maybe he's defining "Winning" as going from a 20 win team to a 40 win team...


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

...looks like knick fans are going to bear witness to a whole lot of basketball "trickery" this year.



> Picturing himself teaming with Crawford in a run-and- gun backcourt during yesterday's media day session, Marbury said, "I think there's going to be way more creativity out there. There will be a lot of between-the-legs stuff. Jamal is very athletic and plays with a flair the way I do. You've got two guys with trickery to their game, and that's beautiful.


oh yeah. lol. 


 


http://www.newsday.com/sports/baske...,0,2963048.story?coll=ny-basketball-headlines


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

Oh boy, here we go again. :|


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

How long will it be before Jamal trade ideas start up again? The Ron Artest Cycle.....about 2 years time, then.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*i said this in another thread*

maybe he meant on a playoff team.

or maybe he meant on a team with semi-competent, veteran NBA players.

or maybe he meant on a team where there are expectations of winning.

or maybe he meant a place where there is hope.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Picturing himself teaming with Crawford in a run-and- gun backcourt during yesterday's media day session, Marbury said, "I think there's going to be way more creativity out there. There will be a lot of between-the-legs stuff. Jamal is very athletic and plays with a flair the way I do. You've got two guys with trickery to their game, and that's beautiful. 

Have either of these guys bothered to check with Wilkins or Thomas about turning MSG into Ruckers? This could turn out to be a very hillarious event. I've seen Marbury play in charity games and Rafer Alston ain't got nothin' on Starbury. He can definitely put on a show. And we all know the kind of magic Crawford can perform with a basketball.

This is going to be something to see. The thing is, it could get out of control. And if they're not winning while they're hot dogging, smart NY fans won't put up with it.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

As for Jamal's remarks, I'm sure he was trying to take a few light jabs at the Bulls. Hey, but so what? The sports world is full of guys taking shots every day. No big deal. Let the kid enjoy himself for the moment.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

*Re: i said this in another thread*



> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> or maybe he meant a place where there is hope.


Ouch. Truth. :|


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

What hope do the Knicks have?

Don't have all their first round picks. Don't have a roster that is close to competing. Are way over the cap. Don't have a great big man or big man project.

The Knicks have no hope. Less than the Bulls definately.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Amareca</b>!
> What hope do the Knicks have?
> 
> Don't have all their first round picks. Don't have a roster that is close to competing. Are way over the cap. Don't have a great big man or big man project.
> ...


I agree with BigAmare/Amareca for once. The Suns/Knicks trade put the Knicks in their place of being mediocre for what could be a very very long time.


----------



## SoCalfan21 (Jul 19, 2004)

> he probably meant winning organization. Anyways it's more winning than he did with the Bulls.


:yes: :yes:


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

Sucks to be a knicks fan. Their contracts are so horrible. Their coach is horrible. Their GM is even horrible. The only bright spot is starbury. Now that I think about it, I feel worse for starbury than knicks fans.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree with BigAmare/Amareca for once. The Suns/Knicks trade put the Knicks in their place of being mediocre for what could be a very very long time.


I'll take mediorce over abysmal any day.

It will be more fun to be a Knick fan this season than a Bulls fan, IMO.

I'm willing to put up with abysmal for a spell... if i see it leading somewhere.

Abysmal followed by reboot followed by more abysmal followed by reboot.... no fun.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

this is the thing i dont get . everyone knows the knicks dont care about what they spend because no matter how much it is they are still profitable. and as long as they are profitable they will continue to spend and not care.

they gave away 2 1st round picks for marbury and 2 2nd round picks i dont see the big deal , its not like the knicks are so old or bad that they need the picks now and the picks will be any good.

one pick was the the 16th in last years draft and the next pick in in 2006 which will likely be a worse pick. they have a decent team that unlike the bulls is actually entering its prime for most part .

i wish the bulls emulated them , they get players , we get scraps.

oh wait we did outbid the pistons for a mascot, thats more important.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> I'll take mediorce over abysmal any day.
> ...


I know where you're coming from, but I live in NY, and I can assure you that the 31-year-and-counting-with-no-end-in-sight titleless streak takes a lot of enjoyment out of it for Knicks fans, at least the discerning ones (not surprisingly, the notion that all Knicks fans are basketball geniuses is largely a bunch of media-propagated hype).

The sad thing (as I remind my Knick-loving friends constantly) is that if they'd done a complete overhaul, 15-win seasons and all, they'd probably have Tim Duncan and Kobe Bryant surrounded by a bunch of lottery picks right now. If the Knicks ever got under the cap, they'd have their pick of the free agent litter, year in, year out.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> this is the thing i dont get . everyone knows the knicks dont care about what they spend because no matter how much it is they are still profitable. and as long as they are profitable they will continue to spend and not care.
> 
> they gave away 2 1st round picks for marbury and 2 2nd round picks i dont see the big deal , its not like the knicks are so old or bad that they need the picks now and the picks will be any good.
> ...


You honestly think a Marbury-led team whose best interior player is Kurt Thomas is really on the way up and primed to contend for anything other than first-round playoff exits?

I just don't see it. When you think about it, all of the Knicks best players ARE scraps--just high-priced ones--who weren't wanted by their previous team(s).

And to clarify, we did not even offer top dollar to the mascot (why am I not surprised?). He chose to come to Chicago for jazz and theater and turned down a more lucrative offer from the Pistons.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Great posts ScottMay.

:clap:


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> I'll take mediorce over abysmal any day.
> 
> It will be more fun to be a Knick fan this season than a Bulls fan, IMO.


Go for it!


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> You honestly think a Marbury-led team whose best interior player is Kurt Thomas is really on the way up and primed to contend for anything other than first-round playoff exits?
> ...


and yet they won 16 more games last season and have added our best scorer for the guys at the end of their bench.

i wish the bulls were playoff fodder than lottery fodder, at least we'll get more underaged talent ...oh wait we dont even have a 1st round pick this season.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> You honestly think a Marbury-led team whose best interior player is Kurt Thomas is really on the way up and primed to contend for anything other than first-round playoff exits?
> ...


And the really sad thing is... over the last 6 years... the Knicks have been easily better than the Bulls.

The scraps kick our ***.

And they will be again this year.

Someday, maybe, in the future the Bulls can be better.

Somday.... maybe....


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Picturing himself teaming with Crawford in a run-and- gun backcourt during yesterday's media day session, Marbury said, "I think there's going to be way more creativity out there. There will be a lot of between-the-legs stuff. Jamal is very athletic and plays with a flair the way I do. You've got two guys with trickery to their game, and that's beautiful.
> 
> Have either of these guys bothered to check with Wilkins or Thomas about turning MSG into Ruckers? This could turn out to be a very hillarious event. I've seen Marbury play in charity games and Rafer Alston ain't got nothin' on Starbury. He can definitely put on a show. And we all know the kind of magic Crawford can perform with a basketball.
> ...


So...where are the "Jamal isn't a streetball player" people now?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Go for it!


Haha... I've been a Bulls fan for far, far too long to become a Knicks fan.

I'll still follow the team.... and hammer their incompetance every chance I get... but I'll still be a fan.

I'm not going to drink the kool-aid. I’ll be here…. “Through Thick and Thin!”… I just know a thicket or a lean year when I see it.

Hey... since you are good at compiling lists... how about you come up with a list of losingest NBA GMs with more than 80 games?

That would be really interesting!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> So...where are the "Jamal isn't a streetball player" people now?


And yet Marbury and Jamal will lead the Knicks to a far better record than the Bulls this season.

Where's the Kool-aid man?


----------



## Philo (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> And the really sad thing is... over the last 6 years... the Knicks have been easily better than the Bulls.
> ...


Sooner than you think!


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> I'll take mediorce over abysmal any day.
> 
> It will be more fun to be a Knick fan this season than a Bulls fan, IMO.
> ...


progress > being stagnant

Bulls have room to keep building, all the way until the point of maybe being a contender sometime in the next 5 years. Knicks will be in the same spot for that same 5 years. 

For me, I'd rather be a contender for 2 years and be rebuilding for 8 years, than to be mediocre for 10 years. I know a lot of people would rather root for a playoff team for 10 years though, even if they never win. I guess you are one of those people.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Knicks>Bulls

Its NOT close and hasn't been so for the last 6 years, and won't be any different for the 7th year. Gimme an over-paid team with a couple of stars that take their team to the postseason over a stink job like the Bulls who haven't sniffed the postseason for years. See, their fans have something to root for(40+ wins, playoff berth etc)......we get to root for a team that will be lucky to win 30 games. Who's in a better position? And don't gimme the "we will much better in the future" crap. Potential talk sounds good when u have a proven foundation to build on and need some growth and decent additions to be REAL GOOD. That doesn't apply to the Bulls in any shape or form. We have young, unproven talent and nobody knows how its gonna turn out. Even if they do blossom, we won't be a playoff team in the lowly EC at least for the next couple of years. Knicks are quite simply in a better position then us. Even during their worst times in post Ewing-era, they were STILL better then us.

Bulls fans r in NO position to mock the NY Knicks or talk trash abt them while pumping up the Chicago Bulls.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> progress > being stagnant
> ...


I have a hard time believing how anybody would prefer seeing two kick-[edit] years, and are then willing to suffer decade long of crappiness. That just tells me u aren't a huge fan of watching competitive basketball.

Gimme a team that will make the playoffs 8 straight years but doesn't win it all. At least there'll be something to look fwd. to and be excited every season.

Another thing, saying the Bulls COULD be a contender in the next 5 years means NOTHING. Anybody could be a title contender in the next 5 years. And currently almost all of em' have more proven talent then the Bulls.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

People underate this years Knicks team. Remember the team that went from 8th seed to finals loser.

Charlie Ward
Allan Houston
Latrell Spreewell
Larry Johnson
Kurt Thomas
Marcus Camby
Chris Childs
Rick Bruson
Andrew Lang
Chris Dudley
John Wallace


compared to this years team

Jamal Crawford
Stephon Marbury
Tim Thomas
Kurt Thomas
Vin Baker
Mengke Bateer
Jamison Brewer
Penny Hardaway
Allan Houston
Nazr Mohhammed
Mike Sweetney
Jerome Williams

I think the latter team is better then the team that lost to the Spurs in the Finals. You actually have a chance to get to the finals if your team makes a playoff. The possibilities are endless. This knicks team is severely underrated.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SPMJ</b>!
> I have a hard time believing how anybody would prefer seeing two kick-a** years, and are then willing to suffer decade long of crappiness. That just tells me u aren't a huge fan of watching competitive basketball.


I'm a huge fan of watching competitive basketball, you just overlooked the fact that I can watch competitive basketball still, its not like the Bulls are the only team I'm allowed to watch. I like watching my team work their way up to the top, from the first season of crappiness to the last season of them being a contender, I look forward to all of it, because I like watching the progress and development.

I cant fathom how anyone could continue to remain excited about a team who is going to repeat the same trend every year. That just tells me you arent a huge fan of watching competitive basketball (anyone can use these subtle cheapshots to knock someones opinion, but they mean nothing, stop using them).


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SPMJ</b>!
> 
> 
> I have a hard time believing how anybody would prefer seeing two kick-a** years, and are then willing to suffer decade long of crappiness. That just tells me u aren't a huge fan of watching competitive basketball.
> ...



It's b/c some people believe that winning championships is all that matters, while others are happy merely to consitently make the playoffs while never winning the top prize.

I for one, would rather take watching the last 20 years of the Bulls than the last 20 years of the Knicks. The 6 championships make up for it. Was that a while ago? Absolutely. However, I prefer it to a 31 year title drought. If you had to ask me right now who is more likely to win a championship first, the Bulls or the Knicks, I might slightly favor the Bulls, just because they are a little more careful with their money right now, although I don't think either team looks leaps and bounds better than the other. 

Personally, I would not rather be in NY's position right now (players, contracts, and salary cap) than the Bulls position, b/c I don't see how they'll ever get from decent to great.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>jnrjr79</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'll take the Bulls future, and the Bulls payroll anyday. The Knicks are truly about to be mired in as playoff fodder (if that) for the elite teams forever.
Not that the Bulls are great bets to be elite...but they at least have a shot at it as long as this team stays together and plays to its potential. The Knicks don't.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> I'll take the Bulls future, and the Bulls payroll anyday. The Knicks are truly about to be mired in as playoff fodder (if that) for the elite teams forever.
> Not that the Bulls are great bets to be elite...but they at least have a shot at it as long as this team stays together and plays to its potential. The Knicks don't.


Yep, this is aboslutely what I think. I just don't see light at the end of the tunnel for NY right now.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

By next year, Bulls will be better than the Knicks and not look back for the rest of the decade.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> I'll take the Bulls future, and the Bulls payroll anyday. The Knicks are truly about to be mired in as playoff fodder (if that) for the elite teams forever.
> Not that the Bulls are great bets to be elite...but they at least have a shot at it as long as this team stays together and plays to its potential. The Knicks don't.


the knicks if they so desired could fix their cap situation in 3 years they only have 4 players under contract at the point marbury jamal crawford kurt thomas and mike sweetney and kurt's deal ends that year and sweetney is a rfa like kirk (by comparison the bulls have 3 at the same time kirk gordon and deng ) the thing is they wont because they build onto their assets they dont tear away at it.

the truth is the knicks were supposed to mired for the last 8 or so years as soon as pat ewing signed his extention, then it was as soon as houston got 100 mil. and now this deal with crawford is supposed to break their backs ...it changed nothing because the knicks dont care about what they spend because at the end of the day they always turn a profit. the bulls do too , but they feed fans some crap about poverty and worst of all people are actually buying it.

the bulls will have to break the bank at some point on somebody or they will never be any good , teams win with stars in the nba , and this letting players go for cap space stuff is weak , who knows what the nba will be like in 2 years , the nba changed on the bulls the last time such a plan was hatched (see the 2000 plan) and the CBA will be negotiated before this new plan by paxson is enacted, with pax's lan so many things have to go right , Curry and chandler have to be dominant , kirk has to be an all star basically as does gordon and probably deng in an ak-47 kind of way deng , kirk and chandler have to be great defenders to make up for gordon and curry's likely defensive deficiancies , while curry and gordon have to be dominant scorers and they have to be great because this team will have no depth due to its being purged in the summer of 2006 .

i see it all as a lie , if curry and chandler are healthy and productive , we are going to lose one of them or cap space in 2006 because we have to sign them in 2005

or the cycle will just repeat with another rebuilding project , while the knicks plan is "we'll take your overpaid players for a talent increase" looks like it will work much better all they have is a bunch of young players entering their prime marbury 27 JC 24
tim thomas 26 sweetney 21 as a core and endless $s being spent to fortify them.

organizations do win championships, players win on the court but without a good organization no superstar will win it all , if you dont believe try imagining how many titles shaq or Mj would have won on a team like the clippers or the hawks , teams that tread water instead of actively taking chances to try to win.

its no coincidence that the better franchises alway seem to win and the lesser ones always seem to lose.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> I'll take the Bulls future, and the Bulls payroll anyday. The Knicks are truly about to be mired in as playoff fodder (if that) for the elite teams forever.
> Not that the Bulls are great bets to be elite...but they at least have a shot at it as long as this team stays together and plays to its potential. The Knicks don't.



Pass the kool aid :no: Im not even a knicks fan but the games havent been played yet but why do the Bulls have a chance IF the team stays together AND plays to their potential but the Knicks dont ?

The Bulls have to take a step up to even become playoff fodder :laugh: 

It seems Bulls fans are migrating into cub fan territory with the wait til next year excuses as they bash teams already better than there own .

I cant believe anyone would want to be the worst team in the league for 6 years instead of a playoff team .


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

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


Never fails...put Jamal Crawford's name out there on a thread...and *BINGO*...look who appears! Its another one of those new Knick fans (a/k/a: JC fans) in Bulls clothing!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Never fails...put Jamal Crawford's name out there on a thread...and *BINGO*...look who appears! Its another one of those new Knick fans (a/k/a: JC fans) in Bulls clothing!



Its not just the Knicks. 

Nearly every other team in the league is doing a better job than the Bulls.

Take a look around the league. Teams have been doing things during our 6 year suck-fest.

Nets – bad to good to mediocre
TWolves – mediocre to elite
Jazz – elite to mediocre
Dallas – bad to elite
Memphis – bad to mediocre
Heat – elite to bad to mediocre to elite
Celtics – bad to above average to mediocre\
Denver – bad to mediocre
Kings – mediocre to elite


I’m just rattling these off the top of my head… I’m sure there are more.

The only other teams that have been close to as bad during this stretch are the Warriors and the Clippers.

And even they have had seasons better than any of the Bulls seasons during this 6 year stretch.

The Bulls are a dismal failure.

We have resigned 0 of our draft picks during this rebuilding phase (other than el chepo 1 year team option).

0!!!!

You can continue to buy into the build for the future argument. 

In principle, I agree with you.

But… you have to have faith that this organization will do what it takes to develop and retain its young talent.

What on earth gives you the impression that they will?


----------



## Philo (Feb 13, 2003)

Two, supersized 21 year olds.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


New Management. I'm open to giving them three years to climb back into the playoffs. One down, two to go.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jnrjr79</b>!
> 
> 
> Yep, this is aboslutely what I think. I just don't see light at the end of the tunnel for NY right now.


C'Mon...this team has Kurt and Shandon on the trading blocks.

Next time a Shaq or McGrady is available in trade...he's going to NY.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> New Management. I'm open to giving them three years to climb back into the playoffs. One down, two to go.


Sounds good to me.

Let's hope Curry and Chandler can get it done.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Sounds good to me.
> 
> Let's hope Curry and Chandler can get it done.


Good for you! Glad to hear you're willing to exercise a reasonable amount of patience. Keep the faith. I really believe it will pay off.
:clap: :greatjob:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> So...where are the "Jamal isn't a streetball player" people now?


Jamal isn't a streetballer, Marbury is and it WAS Marbury who was quoted.


----------



## atlbull (Feb 27, 2004)

Jerry Krause being the GM also had a lot to do with the bulls being bad as long as they were. It was has grand scheme that sent away what could have been a dominant team for many years with likes of Brand, Artest, Miller, Hassell, Hoiberg and etc.....


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Good for you! Glad to hear you're willing to exercise a reasonable amount of patience. Keep the faith. I really believe it will pay off.
> :clap: :greatjob:


I am.

So far Pax has made safe draft picks and managed to turn Jamal Crawford into NOTHING.

Now... the Curry and Chandler stuff begins.

I hope he does a better job.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Great Twinkee</b>!
> People underate this years Knicks team. Remember the team that went from 8th seed to finals loser.
> 
> Charlie Ward
> ...


Let me try to understand your logic here: all any team needs to do is put together a team better than 1999 Knicks, and they've got a great shot at getting to a Finals? I think patterning a team after a fluke Finals run isn't great thinking, unless you know beforehand you're going to draw the worst number 1 seed in the history of the NBA playoffs and that you'll get calls like LJ's four-point play vs. the Pacers.

The current Knicks team has nothing even close to the player that Camby was during that run (until he got hurt), or even a diminished LJ. Unless you think Mike Sweetney's the answer, and to use Grinch's common complaint about Gordon and Deng, Sweetney has accomplished absolutely nothing at the NBA level.

Sorry, folks, I'm as down on the Bulls as anyone, but the Knicks are one team we've got a leg up on. Both teams are on different paths to nowhere, but only an insane person would prefer 31 titleless years to 6 rings in the past 13 seasons.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal isn't a streetballer, Marbury is and it WAS Marbury who was quoted.


Jamal didn't play organized basketball until his junior year in HS. Just where do you think he learned to play?


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> Sorry, folks, I'm as down on the Bulls as anyone, but the Knicks are one team we've got a leg up on. Both teams are on different paths to nowhere, but only an insane person would prefer 31 titleless years to 6 rings in the past 13 seasons.


Bingo. :yes:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal didn't play organized basketball until his junior year in HS. Just where do you think he learned to play?


mostly on a hoop in his fathers driveway in LA by himself...


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> mostly on a hoop in his fathers driveway in LA by himself...


*sigh* 

passing the tissue box cause i know you get a little misty just thinking about this ace!

:boohoo:


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> mostly on a hoop in his fathers driveway in LA by himself...


Were you there watching him?  

<i>
<b>Before Jamal played his first high school game, he was a playground legend like Ardess. </b>In 1996, Jamal's family moved to Seattle from Los Angeles. Jamal enrolled at Franklin for his junior year, but transferred to Rainier Beach after one semester. The next year, 1998, Jamal played his first season of organized basketball and led the Vikings to the Class 3A state championship</i>

http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/123977


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Before Jamal played his first high school game, he was a playground legend like Ardess.


Must be a reporting error.

JC was well known as a *driveway legend*, not a playground legend.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Were you there watching him?
> ...


Who the hell is Ardess? Certainly not a playground legend anyone I know of has ever heard of. This writer is using broad strokes...has Jamal played some pick up games before? yeah...sure..who hasn't? But he is FAR from any sort of streetball legend or even a regular streetballer as that writer seems to imply. But think whatever you like it's a free country.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal isn't a streetballer, Marbury is and it WAS Marbury who was quoted.


Who was he talking about. In plural?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Who the hell is Ardess? Certainly not a playground legend anyone I know of has ever heard of.


If you lived in that area (which is that newspapers audience, not the nation), I'm pretty sure you would have.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Must be a reporting error.
> ...


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>atlbull</b>!
> Jerry Krause being the GM also had a lot to do with the bulls being bad as long as they were. It was has grand scheme that sent away what could have been a dominant team for many years with likes of Brand, Artest, Miller, Hassell, Hoiberg and etc.....



Yep. Here's what I think is important to keep in mind. Kruase attempted with a few revisions to build this team back up after the dynasty years, but wasn't able to do so. Then he was fired/resigned due to health reasons.

Now, Pax is here. He's had one full season of work. As you can see, he's pretty much gotten rid of everyone except the bigs and is filling around them in his own vision. This isn't the same team that he inherited.

You have to separate the losing years before Pax to the losing after Pax. I know from a fan's perspective, we've just been bad the whole time. However, I think whenever you bring a new GM in, you can't expect a one season turnaround if you were as bad as we were. Pax deserves a chance to see if his vision of a basketball team will work. He may succeed or he may fail, and obviously there are people who believe one or the other on this board. However, I think things like a "Fire Pax" mentality are a little dubious. You don't just keep firing everyone b/c your record isn't good. If you hired a new GM every year, I doubt you'd see much improvement. The same thing probably goes for coaches, to a lesser extent. I don't know if this plan will work (though I tend to have a little faith), but we need to give it a chance.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Must be a reporting error.
> ...


LOL

good 1


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Who the hell is Ardess? Certainly not a playground legend anyone I know of has ever heard of. This writer is using broad strokes...has Jamal played some pick up games before? yeah...sure..who hasn't? But he is FAR from any sort of streetball legend or even a regular streetballer as that writer seems to imply. But think whatever you like it's a free country.


I think you should ask the writer, what does he know:

Nathan Fenno can be reached at 425-453-4257 or [email protected]


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I think this discussion has been extremely interesting.

While it appears that ScottMay and happygrinch are arguing, they both make some perfectly valid points. kukoc4ever and Kismet, too.

For Kismet -

You can belittle the streetball kind of basketball that Marbury says he and Crawford can play together, but there's a real danger in doing so. IF the Knicks actually have an offensive scheme that allows the two to play their game, the danger is Crawford will both provide great entertainment value for the paying fans' dollar AND he may ultimately prove some peoples' belief that Crawford has been a budding star all along. We actually have a fairly scientific way of seeing if the Marine Drill Sergeant/Boot Camp style basketball and discipline works better than giving creative players the freedom to play the game as it suits them.

For the others -

ScottMay (I am a big fan of your posting) does make great points about New York's situation. Given cap flexibility, they surely would be an attractive place for Free Agents to go. 

However, in spite of their cap issues, they still have been able to have guys like Van Horn, Mutombo, Kidd, Marbury, and Houston on the roster. And they were able to get the Bulls' (arguably) best player and add it to their team without sacrificing much at all. IF (a big word) history repeats itself (Artest, Brand, et al), New York improved itself more than you'd think possible considering the finances.

And Crawford IS a 17PPG scorer who didn't take _that_ many FGA/game compared to other team leading scorers around the league.

On top of this, when Crawford was at his best, he did make guys like JYD play way over his head, which he may be able to do for those "stiffs" (including JYD) what he did for the Bulls too infrequently. I point to Skiles' first game as coach, before he installed his system and the players just played.

So, for ScottMay, who lives in NY... How good is Sweetney?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> the danger is Crawford will both provide great entertainment value for the paying fans' dollar


Yeah...they're gonna LOVE watching the opposing team fast break off of the steals and rebounds from the missed shots.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> So, for ScottMay, who lives in NY... How good is Sweetney?


I am not nearly as high on Sweetney as Grinch or Isiah Thomas. I realize the Knicks are trying to peddle Kurt Thomas, but that's because of his contract and because he's peaked as a player, not necessarily because Sweetney is better than Thomas.

The easiest way to describe Sweetney is Elton Brand-light (maybe not a good choice of words given Sweetney's weight issues). He has good hands, rebounds well, and is a very efficient post scorer.

But he's not a great athlete even when in shape. Mediocre post defender and shot blocker. Gets offensive tunnel vision -- he'll get the ball and it's either going to be shot or turned over. Imagine a right-handed Othella Harrington when Harrington was younger and I think you'll get the idea.

As for your point about the relatively flashy acquisitions the Knicks have made over the years, I can't deny the fact that the Knicks have had some big names come and go in trades. But just about all of them have been "damaged goods" whose previous teams gave up on, despite their talent. Guys like Marbury and Tim Thomas are working on their fourth team and they're in their mid-20s!

I'm not saying this was necessarily the case with Jamal -- money was the primary reason the Bulls let him go, imo. But I truly believe the Knicks were just about the worse place Jamal could have ended up. I don't see Jamal fixing any of their deficiencies.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I think this discussion has been extremely interesting.
> 
> While it appears that ScottMay and happygrinch are arguing, they both make some perfectly valid points. kukoc4ever and Kismet, too.
> ...


Believe me, I'm not belittling Marbury's skills. He really tones down his game during the regular season. I watched him square off with Jay Williams in a charity game and came away seriously impressed with his skills. And I've got nothing but admiration for Crawford's natural ability. But if Marbury's going to go showtime and encourage Crawford to do the same, there's going to be some very upset NY fans if it doesn't translate into a winning season. And that doesn't even take into consideration how their teamates will react if Marbury and Crawford monopolize the ball too much. I seem to recall a number of Bulls players during the glory years who weren't too thrilled with the lack of touches they were getting.

Its a dangerous game they'll be playing if they think they can put on a show and win at the same time.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> Its a dangerous game they'll be playing if they think they can put on a show and win at the same time.


The Globetrotters have done it for years.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> The Globetrotters have done it for years.


I know a couple of WNBA teams that could beat the 'trotters.


----------



## atlbull (Feb 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>jnrjr79</b>!
> However, I think whenever you bring a new GM in, you can't expect a one season turnaround if you were as bad as we were. Pax deserves a chance to see if his vision of a basketball team will work. He may succeed or he may fail, and obviously there are people who believe one or the other on this board. However, I think things like a "Fire Pax" mentality are a little dubious. You don't just keep firing everyone b/c your record isn't good. If you hired a new GM every year, I doubt you'd see much improvement. The same thing probably goes for coaches, to a lesser extent. I don't know if this plan will work (though I tend to have a little faith), but we need to give it a chance.


Agreed. I'm sure this has been mentioned already but the other problem we had was with the coaching. having to learn a new scheme every year don't help and the fact that there were way too many player turnover didn't help with chemistry. But, I really do like the what Paxson has done thus far. I'm really optimistic about the upcoming season.


----------

