# Knick Fans: Who Do You Want To Keep? Steph or Francis



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

Alright it's pretty obvious, we need to get rid of either Steph or Stevie. Now who do you think should go? Or should both of them pack their bags and hit the road.


----------



## Free Arsenal (Nov 8, 2004)

I say force Thomas out of retirement to run the point. I'm sure he'll like Larry Brown as coach.


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

if i had a choice id keep francis.

marbury is too inconsitent and indecisive about how he plays......

Steve will just play. 

but honestly, id rather have Nate and jamal at the 1 and 2...they play much harder


----------



## KVIP112 (Oct 31, 2005)

both


----------



## Chinatownballer (Oct 13, 2005)

The True Essence said:


> if i had a choice id keep francis.
> 
> marbury is too inconsitent and indecisive about how he plays......
> 
> ...


word
we need heart not giant contracts


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Both have proven they cannot lead their team anywhere. Draft a PG, and run him with Crawford.












And trade Nate to Seattle.


----------



## KVIP112 (Oct 31, 2005)

wtchan ur [strike]gay[/strike] ur not getting nate, bye


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i'd trade francis personally to the twolves. and get back some defenders

francis for hassell & jaric sounds about right...it would help both teams .


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Unload both...*

and get Mike James to run the team. BTW, IT was exactly the kind of PG LB would have loved...and IT would have loved playing for LB.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

WTChan said:


> And trade Nate to Seattle.


Chill out with the Nate to Seattle posts. It's not going to happen anytime soon, if not ever. Let's stay on topic...it's all about NYK!


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

Grinch, why do you want to keep Steph at this point? You think he can turn it around next season and come out smelling like roses aka Billups style.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Kitty said:


> Grinch, why do you want to keep Steph at this point? You think he can turn it around next season and come out smelling like roses aka Billups style.


because he is a good player and unlike francis ....marbury is a good point guard while francis looks more like a 2 guard with a great handle . also there is chemistry issues if you keep changing players at every position, marbury is an advantage vs. just about every pg in the league and he is the longest tenured knick, i'd keep him for continuity alone...at this point he is the knicks identity.

the team doesn't need a new pg , it needs defense , if IT can trade francis for a good-great frontcourt defender like rasho nesterovic i would be on board , the team is just overloaded at guard scoring and too poor in other areas


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> because he is a good player and unlike francis ....marbury is a good point guard while francis looks more like a 2 guard with a great handle . also there is chemistry issues if you keep changing players at every position, marbury is an advantage vs. just about every pg in the league and he is the longest tenured knick, i'd keep him for continuity alone...at this point he is the knicks identity.
> 
> the team doesn't need a new pg , it needs defense , if IT can trade francis for a good-great frontcourt defender like rasho nesterovic i would be on board , the team is just overloaded at guard scoring and too poor in other areas


I understand where you coming from, but the guy is killing the locker room. Why would continue to have him on this team if he is walking around with a scrowl and a towel over his head? You want the new kids on this team to be surrounded by positive players. Steph hasn't been positive about this at all. I'm not sure if I want to keep him aboard for another season of crying to the media and watching him show up team mates when they make a mistake. I think I had enough.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Kitty said:


> Chill out with the Nate to Seattle posts. It's not going to happen anytime soon, if not ever. Let's stay on topic...it's all about NYK!


Yea, I know. But my point remains. I just don't like the idea of a starting scoring guard as a PG when you have a good iso player in Crawford, a shooter who needs someone to create for him in Q, and Eddy Curry. I'm not saying Nate can't start, I'm just saying it's not a good idea. Too many options, not enough distributors.


----------



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

I'd keep Francis, but not as the point guard.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Grinch, you're right*

The identity of the Knicks is of a losing team....and Marbury is the face. I'm not sure why you cling to him, but he's a goner. I gave him the benefit of the doubt when he was playing well but he can't stand prosperity and became a huge distraction with his sparring with Brown. He is most certainly NOT a good PG, but he IS a helluva scorer. Big deal....it usually comes at the expense of the team. This doesn't even begin to take into consideration his team chemistry issues. Yes, he can outscore Nash and some of the others(perhaps), but I'll take Nash's 15/8 with a smooth running offense to Marbury's 20/8 and an offense of guys standing around watching anyday. The chemistry issues you talk about are largely BECAUSE of Marbury and his attitude. You say we need defense and yet you want to keep one of the worst defenders at his position in the NBA? His tenure means nothing...absolutely nothing. Win or go home.

You and others have yet to come up with a really good reason to hope he is an answer. The detractors, however, have a busload of ammunition. History always repeats and every team he has played on has chemistry issues. They get better when he leaves. He doesn't D up. He is not self sacrificing. He does not run a disciplined offense well at all. What are your reasons again? And what, besides blind faith, are you basing them on?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Kitty said:


> I understand where you coming from, but the guy is killing the locker room. Why would continue to have him on this team if he is walking around with a scrowl and a towel over his head? You want the new kids on this team to be surrounded by positive players. Steph hasn't been positive about this at all. I'm not sure if I want to keep him aboard for another season of crying to the media and watching him show up team mates when they make a mistake. I think I had enough.


people love to scapegoat , but i am of the belief that no one man can kill a locker anymore than one man can save one.

if steph could kill a locker room , then the other 13 men in the locker room are very weak men and weren't going to win anyway. By all accounts Steph is just a guy who wears a scowl because thats just the guy he is , like kurt thomas wore a scowl or charles oakley did , it doesn't make them a bad person and doesn't automatically make them less than personable to players on the team (outsiders who only see a surface demeanor possibly though)also if anything he runs hot and cold with people , he can have his moments where he is less than a saint (the bad body language which is more personal weakness than showing up to me, showing weakness empowers the opposing team to come at you harder) and he has moments that endear himself to his teammates like when he bought suits for his rookie teammates and the mil. for Katrina victims .

when i look at the Knicks team i see leaders who aren't steph in crawford, Qrich, jalen, malik and frye , to me marbury is just a guy who is the team's best player and a guy with some pull with IT , not much different from JC, and when i look at the roster i see a team that looks like "this is your life Jamal" with guys he played with in HS(nate), went to his college(mo and jalen) played with him in Hoops the Gym (Qrich and curry), played with him in seattle in the offseason(jerome james) and on his team in chi. (Jalen and Curry again). if there were some evidence the team did well without marbury i could try to buy the "marbury is bringing these guys down" angle , but all season the team has been rather bad when he hasn't been on the court and when he was hurt they were dreadful, 

i look at him more like having a jordanesque personality(to a lesser degree because this is not a compliment) without the jordanlike ability to back it up, you ask reporters who was the best teammate on those title teams they say it was jordan ...you ask the actual players and to a man they say pippen which to me means on the most covered team in recent memory the press got it wrong , in fact most of MJ's teammates didn't like him at all , some guys like horace grant actually hated him, but they could work with him because they were professional, and i think they have it wrong here too.

i see when the cameras go to the bench, the team is actually a team that likes each other , marbury included, and it has some very different personalities on it , you have some mellow guys on it , some rah-rah types and you have guys like marbury who are more melancholy(steve francis is the 1st that comes to mind replacing another guy who was like that in penny) who on the roster is having a problem with Steph ... 

I think most would say Qrich , but right after their beef (supposedly) Q plays the best he has all season , to me that was leadership. also lets remember at that occasion marbury was not the only person to call Q out he just did it with the most decibles behind his voice.

if these guys truly like winning then they like playing with marbury because without him they are the worse team in the nba, 

and even so i can understand not wanting him on the team as a fan , with the persona he puts out usually to many people he just isn't likable, and fans have a right to want likable guys on the roster ,add to that he is inarticulate and makes some truly dumb statements and actions but i think he is needed for more than his points and assists , he is one of the few "tough" guys on this team , there are more than a fair share of softies on this roster ...marbury is essentially this team's "enforcer" and that is sad ...there is maybe 2 other guys who you can call tough for his position and that is QRich and nate...no one in the frontcourt , and for a LB team who wants to grind things out in the halfcourt that is a problem.


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

Marcus Williams please. And if we trade Nate, I'd want Watson AND Rashard in return. XD


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Grinch, you're right*



alphadog said:


> The identity of the Knicks is of a losing team....and Marbury is the face. I'm not sure why you cling to him, but he's a goner. I gave him the benefit of the doubt when he was playing well but he can't stand prosperity and became a huge distraction with his sparring with Brown. He is most certainly NOT a good PG, but he IS a helluva scorer. Big deal....it usually comes at the expense of the team. This doesn't even begin to take into consideration his team chemistry issues. Yes, he can outscore Nash and some of the others(perhaps), but I'll take Nash's 15/8 with a smooth running offense to Marbury's 20/8 and an offense of guys standing around watching anyday. The chemistry issues you talk about are largely BECAUSE of Marbury and his attitude. You say we need defense and yet you want to keep one of the worst defenders at his position in the NBA? His tenure means nothing...absolutely nothing. Win or go home.
> 
> You and others have yet to come up with a really good reason to hope he is an answer. The detractors, however, have a busload of ammunition. History always repeats and every team he has played on has chemistry issues. They get better when he leaves. He doesn't D up. He is not self sacrificing. He does not run a disciplined offense well at all. What are your reasons again? And what, besides blind faith, are you basing them on?



alpha , 

the team sucks without him , thats an established fact .

the knicks suck this year because they cant score and they cant defend...none of that changes when marbury is off the court ...actually they score better when marbury is on the court and defend worse when he is on the bench . the knicks shoot better when he is playing and the opponents shoot better when he is sitting.


http://www.82games.com/0506/05NYK2D.HTM

marbury is way better than you are giving him credit for.

you can say what you like but the facts dont lie.

if you can trade marbury for nash i say go for it , but chances you cant and neither can IT , i would accept last year's marbury and JC launching whenever they saw fit occasionally passing to a good shooting perimeter PF and actually being able to win some games and staying in most of them, with a coach no one cares about than this year's Super coach who has a horrible defense only matched by and even worse offense where To's happen more than assists .


i only cling to common sense...someday i hope you will too.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

That's a good point. If Marbury and Francis both leave, who's team is this?


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

WTChan said:


> That's a good point. If Marbury and Francis both leave, who's team is this?


Nate's XD


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

Get rid of whoever has the highest trade value.

I agree with Da Grinch, what the knicks need is defense and rebounding.

Personally, I would like to see Richardson and Crawford gone as well maybe in a deal with Rose? I like Woods and at this point, I think the Knicks need to try to develop him - he still has the potential to be a good SF and I think they need to find a way to get him some more time and development. 

I also don't think Curry/Frye is a good combination - I personally don't know how that's gonna work out, and Frye HAS to be a starter next year at least.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Tragedy said:


> Get rid of whoever has the highest trade value.
> 
> I agree with Da Grinch, what the knicks need is defense and rebounding.
> 
> ...


the guy with the highest trade value has to be francis , he has less years on his deal and makes less money .

frye and curry can work , if frye defends the lane like he did in that game he got hurt ...frye and curry are big bodies who know they cant board , they can box out and let the other players rebound , but its easier most likely just to get a charles oakley type to do it .

by the way that is a great sig.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> the guy with the highest trade value has to be francis , he has less years on his deal and makes less money .
> 
> frye and curry can work , if frye defends the lane like he did in that game he got hurt ...frye and curry are big bodies who know they cant board , they can box out and let the other players rebound , but its easier most likely just to get a charles oakley type to do it .
> 
> by the way that is a great sig.


 I think woods fits in well there, because he's shown to be a good rebounder. I think he can average 7 or 8 with consistent time. 

Glad you like the sig. lol


----------



## speedythief (Jul 16, 2003)

I like the young players on your team. I want them to do well. I think getting rid of both of those guards, along with Crawford and JRose, even for nothing, will help your team in the long run.

Isiah's ego is huge. He thinks he can turn anyone around. He's a good drafter and he should focus on that. Hard to do when he's trading the picks but he can still try to find young assets.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Ummm...what facts, Grinch?*

Stats again? Numbers don't make winners and you should know that. Ever notice how many of the scoring champs don't wear rings (sans MJ)? If you believe one guy can't riun a locker room you're being naive. The amount of tension and discension caused by one person (especially a high profile one) can soar. Check out the effect TO had on the iggles. Was he the ssole reason for their season? Nope but he made the locker room a mess...just him, and there are far more players in a football locker room. 

Youo simply can't site stats when saying the team is better with him. Because it was built with him to star from the beginning, oif course they will struggle without him. Had he not been there and they were constructed to play without him from the start, do you really think they would be worse? You don't cling to common sense, Grinch. If you did, you'd be able to site some successful examples to back up your dreams. Gunners and one on one players don't win titles....ever. TEAMS win...ALWAYS. Marbury will never be PART of a team.....and neither will Francis. You can say differently...it is your right...but you have to admit there is nothing in either of their pasts to suggest they will conform.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Ummm...what facts, Grinch?*



alphadog said:


> Stats again? Numbers don't make winners and you should know that. Ever notice how many of the scoring champs don't wear rings (sans MJ)? If you believe one guy can't riun a locker room you're being naive. The amount of tension and discension caused by one person (especially a high profile one) can soar. Check out the effect TO had on the iggles. Was he the ssole reason for their season? Nope but he made the locker room a mess...just him, and there are far more players in a football locker room.
> 
> Youo simply can't site stats when saying the team is better with him. Because it was built with him to star from the beginning, oif course they will struggle without him. Had he not been there and they were constructed to play without him from the start, do you really think they would be worse? You don't cling to common sense, Grinch. If you did, you'd be able to site some successful examples to back up your dreams. Gunners and one on one players don't win titles....ever. TEAMS win...ALWAYS. Marbury will never be PART of a team.....and neither will Francis. You can say differently...it is your right...but you have to admit there is nothing in either of their pasts to suggest they will conform.


you dont like stats well what do you really have to back up your points ...your 2nd hand opinion...possibly 3rd hand opinion.

here is a fact as old as time in basketball, if you cant guard or score you lose .

the 93-94 bulls were built around michael jordan a far more important piece than marbury is to the knicks , they won 55 games only 2 less than a year when MJ played 82 games...they replaced him with pete myers in training camp.

you can have a team built around a player and still prosper without him , if you have good coaching and some decent talent .

the mavs 2 years ago were built around nash dirk and finley ....now they only have dirk and lesser player manning the other 2 players roles ....yet they win more now than the last year they had all 3.

most scoring champs dont win titles because they dont have enough talent around them to win ...thus they take enough shots to lead the league in scoring ...shaq and kobe have led the league in scoring without each other but neither led the league with the other on his team because they had enough help scoring it wasn't needed, its not because they were so selfish that they needed all the shots(at least in shaq's case)

plenty of scoring champs have won titles when they got more help , their ego was no problem , its a list who nba greats if you ever looked at it. wilt, Kareem abdul jabbar , MJ , david robinson, shaq , kobe you need talent to win and you need a coach who puts his own ego aside to make it happen .

phil jax hated scottie pippen and tore him a new one in a book about 10 years ago , but he won 6 titles with him...he killed kobe in a book too but won 3 more with him.

kobe is the best 1 on 1 player in the league and he has 3 titles ...you make no sense when you say you cant win with one on one players, MJ won 6 and he might be the best 1 on 1 guy of all time. plenty of 1 on 1 guys have rings, jerry west has a few dr.J has 1 one , kareem has 6and the nba's all time leading scorer and he didn't get his points off of open J's he got them going 1 on 1 in the post buddy., the only reason the pistons have 1 is a guy they call mr. big shot , he has that name because of how he took the lakers one on one in 2004, its the silliest thing i have ever heard of , the spurs have 2 great 1 on 1 guys in manu and tony parker,not to mention that guy in the post who cant be defended by one man in tim duncan.

and TO won a super bowl with the eagles....the team was divided with TO because half the team thought he was right...and donavon was wrong....somthing to chew on because that means it really wasn't one guy it was more like 30 .

all you are doing is making wild statements you cant possibly back up and using bad logic and worse opinions because the things you say cant possibly be facts.


----------



## urwhatueati8god (May 27, 2003)

*Re: Ummm...what facts, Grinch?*



Da Grinch said:


> *and TO won a super bowl with the eagles* ....the team was divided with TO because half the team thought he was right...and donavon was wrong....somthing to chew on because that means it really wasn't one guy it was more like 30 .
> 
> all you are doing is making wild statements you cant possibly back up and using bad logic and worse opinions because the things you say cant possibly be facts.


Back up your own statements. :biggrin: 

Nice use of _ad hominem_ by the way. Really. 



 alphadog said:


> You don't cling to common sense, Grinch. If you did, you'd be able to site some successful examples to back up your dreams.


You too, alphadog.

Grinch, you mention your the numbers on and off the floor, but let's look at the Roland ratings for all the teams top players who amass 50% of the minutes or more.


Cavaliers - Lebron James - 16.9
Heat - Dwyane Wade - 16.6
Lakers - Kobe Bryant - 14.3
Rockets - Yao Ming - 12.5
Timberwolves - Kevin Garnett - 12.4
76ers - Allen Iverson - 12.0
Clippers - Elton Brand - 11.7
Pistons - Chauncey Billups - 11.5
Nets - Vince Carter - 11.2
Mavericks - Dirk Nowitski - 11.1
Supersonics - Ray Allen - 10.8
Suns - Steve Nash - 10.2
Bucks - Michael Redd - 9.5
Spurs - Tim Duncan - 9.4
Jazz - Andrei Kirilenko - 8.9
Celtics - Paul Pierce - 8.7
Raptors - Chris Bosh - 7.8
Warriors - Jason Richardson - 7.2
Grizzlies - Pau Gasol - 6.8
Wizards - Gilbert Arenas - 6.2
Nuggets - Carmelo Anthony - 5.4
Hornets - Speedy Claxton - 4.8
Bulls - Luol Deng - 4.7
Magic - Dwight Howard - 4.2
Kings - Shareef Abdur-Rahim - 3.0
Hawks - Joe Johnson - 2.7
Trailblazers - Zach Randolph - 1.9
*Knicks - Stephon Marbury - 1.8* 
Bobcats - Raymond Felton - 1.1
Pacers - Fred Jones - -1.4

That's not very good. Most teams second and sometimes even third fiddles can match that. Marbury hasn't lead this team well at all, and it shows here. The Pacers would have better, but they traded their most productive player mid-season and Sojakovic hasn't amassed 50% of the minutes played, and in the interest of fairness, the only player on that team that has played 50% was Fred Jones. Really, in terms of the guys amassing the minutes for their teams, Marbury beats out Raymond Felton and that's about it. That's not exactly what I would call leadership, unless a team wants to be lead to last place.


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

Kitty said:


> I understand where you coming from, but the guy is killing the locker room. Why would continue to have him on this team if he is walking around with a scrowl and a towel over his head? You want the new kids on this team to be surrounded by positive players. Steph hasn't been positive about this at all. I'm not sure if I want to keep him aboard for another season of crying to the media and watching him show up team mates when they make a mistake. I think I had enough.


Greatest post ever, this has always been about Stephon, Stephon, Stephon, he doesn't take into consideration what he's doing to this team. He might be doing it on purpose, but nevertheless, he hurts the team in more ways than one.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Ummm...what facts, Grinch?*



urwhatueati8god said:


> Back up your own statements. :biggrin:
> 
> Nice use of _ad hominem_ by the way. Really.
> 
> ...


you are right my bad about TO .

and marbury is having a bad year on the roland ratings , but he is not always that low , last year he was 9th in the roland ratings , i tend to put the onus for his bad year and for the most part the rest of the team on LB , its not like he got old , he should be in his prime.


----------



## ToddMacCulloch11 (May 31, 2003)

*Re: Ummm...what facts, Grinch?*

I'd get rid of both of them..but if I had to keep one, it'd be stevie. But like was mentioned, not as the PG.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

personally i think steph is more talented
but they will keep francis and try to offload marbury in the off season


----------



## urwhatueati8god (May 27, 2003)

Avalanche said:


> personally i think steph is more talented
> but they will keep francis and try to offload marbury in the off season


All "locker room distraction" arguments aside, Stephon is far more talented compared to Steve Francis. Francis turns the ball over way to much, is as almost much as a defensive liability as Marbury, shoots worse and passes worse. If we are keeping any of them, I highly hope it's Marbury. However, both of them have been lackluster and aren't worth their contracts. I would like to see them dealt, preferably for players who are just as efficient but excel on the defensive end, and I sure as hell don't want to see anybody as turnover prone as Francis coming back.


----------

