# OT: Garnett Officially On The Block?



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

> Over the weekend, several Eastern Conference general managers told ESPN.com's *Chad Ford* that Minnesota Timberwolves GM *Kevin McHale* is finally listening to trade offers for Wolves superstar *Kevin Garnett*.
> 
> For a couple of years, the Bulls have seemed to be a natural destination for the former Chicago high school star. Bulls GM *John Paxson* has stockpiled a lot of young talent that could potentially go to Minnesota in a trade.


http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/features/rumors


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

well the good news is if chicago is more interested in getting garnett we'll have a better shot at kobe


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*I hope Kobe goes to Chicago*

unless we get to keep our young guys...or most of them. If we lose Frye and Lee, we are cooked at PF. We would then need a real stud rebounder. How would we get one? No real depth at guard. No quality back up at center. The team would be fragile. If Kobe were to go down, we would be nothing..a lotto team.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

*Re: I hope Kobe goes to Chicago*



alphaorange said:


> unless we get to keep our young guys...or most of them. If we lose Frye and Lee, we are cooked at PF. We would then need a real stud rebounder. How would we get one? No real depth at guard. No quality back up at center. The team would be fragile. If Kobe were to go down, we would be nothing..a team.


I don't think it would be as bad as you make it out to be. For one thing, I think the deal would be something like Marbury, Frye, Lee and picks for Kobe and maybe a guy like Cook. The Lakers won't want a lot of players, especially if they are overpaid like Crawford and Richardson.

You would still be left with Francis, Crawford, Collins, and Robinson to pair with Kobe in the backcourt. That's plenty. QRich, Jeffries and Balkman could man the 3. As you state, the 4 spot and backup 5 would be a concern. But whose to say they can't fill that with the MLE or another trade?


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*We wouold be guard heavy*

and big man poor. You simply cannot find stud rebounders for the MLE and the only guy left to trade would be Crawford...who is not going to bring a good big man. Moot, since Marbury will not be in the trade. Francis, maybe...same salary range, age, and skill set. If he has to retire die to injury, the Lakers get to wipe his contract off the books after one year. Frye and Lee both is a bad deal. I really don't want to lose those guys. I think both will be starters in this league a long time. People act like Kobe is superman, but the fact is, he is a HUGE Prima donna who has not won anything without Shaq in his prime. He is wildly entertaining and talented but he will need a good team around him. The most dominating player in the last 15 years had to have Kobe and a solid cast to win..and they may not have done it if they had to face these current teams (Spurs in particular). Kobe is probably as good as ever but Curry is no Shaq. So basically, you have no rebounder, no shot blocker, no post passing, and you would expect to compete for a title with what you can "dig up" to add? If we can't keep a lot of our youth by adding vets or bringing in a 3rd team, I'd bag it and call McHale. KG would be much better suited to the Knicks.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Rebounding can be replaced. Fortson, Evans, Kenny Thomas, etc.. all guys who could be had and guys who can rebound the ball. 

Speaking of Evans and the Nugz, maybe Kenyon Martin?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

With Garnett at the 4 and Curry at the 5, why are you worried about the spots? That's a brutal inside-out pairing.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: I hope Kobe goes to Chicago*



alphaorange said:


> unless we get to keep our young guys...or most of them. If we lose Frye and Lee, we are cooked at PF. We would then need a real stud rebounder. How would we get one? No real depth at guard. No quality back up at center. The team would be fragile. If Kobe were to go down, we would be nothing..a lotto team.


We could sign a forward to rebound the ball. Once again, you don't need much next to Kobe and Curry is a hell of a start, especially in the East. Kobe getting injuried is about the same risk as any other star on any other team in the league. Where would the Spurs be without Duncan? A lottery team. I don't know why that is such a big issue for you when Bryant has never missed a significant amount of time to injury and as if we're not a lottery team already.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: We wouold be guard heavy*



alphaorange said:


> and big man poor. You simply cannot find stud rebounders for the MLE and the only guy left to trade would be Crawford...who is not going to bring a good big man. Moot, since Marbury will not be in the trade. Francis, maybe...same salary range, age, and skill set. If he has to retire die to injury, the Lakers get to wipe his contract off the books after one year. Frye and Lee both is a bad deal. I really don't want to lose those guys. I think both will be starters in this league a long time. People act like Kobe is superman, but the fact is, he is a HUGE Prima donna who has not won anything without Shaq in his prime. He is wildly entertaining and talented but he will need a good team around him. The most dominating player in the last 15 years had to have Kobe and a solid cast to win..and they may not have done it if they had to face these current teams (Spurs in particular). Kobe is probably as good as ever but Curry is no Shaq. So basically, you have no rebounder, no shot blocker, no post passing, and you would expect to compete for a title with what you can "dig up" to add? If we can't keep a lot of our youth by adding vets or bringing in a 3rd team, I'd bag it and call McHale. KG would be much better suited to the Knicks.


The Nuggets signed Reggie Evans to the MLE as was Haslem basically with the Heat. You can find most of whatever you need at that price but you'd just have to understand your not getting a star for that price most likely. Like the previous poster pointed out, we'd be left with players that could be used as assets. A guy like Crawford, who has proven to be one of the better 6th man options in the league, could bring back a guy like Rasheed Wallace who is aging but still solid.

Kobe may have never won anything without Shaq but the same can be said about the league's golden boy, Dwayne Wade. I got to strongly disagree about Garnett being a better fit with the Knicks considering he has had more to work with than Kobe but has not shown the same results.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Lets just say I disagree*

Kobe and Curry is a start. You make an assumption their games would mesh and that Curry will improve the holes in his game. I don't think Kobe needs Curry for him to be an effective scorer and Curry needs only a couple of outside threats to be effective. 

If you think SA is a lotto team without Duncan, you are not paying attention. THAT is a patently ridiculous statement. Take Duncan off that team and they would win the Atlantic, no problem. They are a complete team. You can have your Curry and Kobe foundation (actually you can't because he will not be coming here) but I think it is foolhardy. You are still far too enamored of Curry's game.


----------



## da1nonly (May 8, 2006)

I say, dont waste pieces on Garnett. Kobe will be much more rewarding, I think.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Okay, oh wise kobewan*

explain how we are better with Kobe over KG. A little detail please.


----------



## Five5even (Jun 15, 2007)

*Re: Okay, oh wise kobewan*



alphaorange said:


> explain how we are better with Kobe over KG. A little detail please.


Well....

Kobe = 3 rings
Garnett = First Round Playoff Exit.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Dumb statement....*

So by your brilliant logic, Horry is better than Kobe or KG or Shaq or AI or countless others. Right?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Okay, oh wise kobewan*



alphaorange said:


> explain how we are better with Kobe over KG. A little detail please.


Simple..Kobe is the most dominant player in the game today and can singlehandedly take over a game...KG either can not or chooses not to..

IMHO,Kobe would elevate Currys more so than KG..


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*How so?*

#1) Any guy can be slowed down. If Kobe could take over anytime he wanted, they would have won every close game. I don't see where he would elevate Curry's game at all. They double Kobe...he passes into Curry...Curry is doubled or tripled..bad shot or TO. Plus to get him we will make other voids on the team.

#2) KG would take a similar trade except he would fill the voids created by the trade better than they were AND offer shot-blocking and more offense. The team would be much better balanced. 

This team with Kobe would be a stronger team with Frye and Lee as his team mates, rather than Curry and Juan the mystery PF. Plus, including Eddie in the trade would allow us to keep more of the young guys. Like I said, it'd probably take a third team because the Lakers are set at center. Have to re-rout him to Atlanta or someplace that would have players the Lakers would need/want....which would depend on who they would draft. They would have 2 first rounders, maybe more. I think all 3 teams could benefit in a big way.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

Curry
KG
Balkman/Jeffries/Quentin
Crawford?
Marbury


Who would the Knicks be trading for KG if they were to do it? Frye, Lee, Francis etc.?


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

Francis, Richardson, Frye, Lee for Garnett, McCants?

or Francis, Crawford, Frye for KG McCants?

I have no idea.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

KG would give us the CONSISTENT scoring we need, and providing the defense and toughness the Knicks need badly. If we give up Lee too, KG fills in the rebounding, and I think he'll work well with Curry and Marbury (gotta keep marbury IMO) He's a playmaker and can score, so it'll make life easier for Curry who put up 19 a game while still learning how to handle double teams and positioning.

Marbury can always have the ball in his hands at the end of games, so that takes care of that. I don't know if I'd prefer Richardson over Crawford or vice versa at this point., but I'd like the trade if it were to happen.

It would require the front office (the wolves) to realize that getting frye and giving up mccants would be good for them.

Kobe or KG I'm down either way. As long as Marbury and Curry are still on board.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Okay, oh wise kobewan*



alphaorange said:


> explain how we are better with Kobe over KG. A little detail please.


Well here's the thing, Kobe has done alot more with the cast he's done than KG has. If you look at each roster, KG's has established players that can play this game. Kobe has a group of young guys that might not be in the league if they were not so lucky to be Lakers aka Smush Parker. Do you see the difference? Even more than just that, Kobe is a game finisher while Garnett has shyed away from that in the past. You and I both know that we need that on our team with our propensity to lose leads. In addition to that, Kobe spaces the floor much better for Curry who is still our franchise player in the making.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

*Re: Okay, oh wise kobewan*



TwinkieFoot said:


> Well here's the thing, Kobe has done alot more with the cast he's done than KG has. If you look at each roster, KG's has established players that can play this game. Kobe has a group of young guys that might not be in the league if they were not so lucky to be Lakers aka Smush Parker. Do you see the difference? Even more than just that, Kobe is a game finisher while Garnett has shyed away from that in the past. You and I both know that we need that on our team with our propensity to lose leads. In addition to that, Kobe spaces the floor much better for Curry who is still our franchise player in the making.


The game does not work that way. A frontcourt of Curry and Garnett is instantly one of the best in the game. Marbury and Kobe might sound nice on paper until you realize that Kobe dominates the ball like no other, making Marbury ineffective.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Lets just say I disagree*



alphaorange said:


> Kobe and Curry is a start. You make an assumption their games would mesh and that Curry will improve the holes in his game. I don't think Kobe needs Curry for him to be an effective scorer and Curry needs only a couple of outside threats to be effective.
> 
> If you think SA is a lotto team without Duncan, you are not paying attention. THAT is a patently ridiculous statement. Take Duncan off that team and they would win the Atlantic, no problem. They are a complete team. You can have your Curry and Kobe foundation (actually you can't because he will not be coming here) but I think it is foolhardy. You are still far too enamored of Curry's game.


Why wouldn't Kobe and Curry's game mesh is the question? Kobe for one is an excellent lob passer which is the same game Crawford and Curry generally work. I just don't see any issues between the two.

Crazy thing is though that the Spurs are not in the Atlantic division, they are in the Western Conference. Take Duncan off that team and the whole foundation changes defensively and offensively. I don't know how you can even find my statement ridiculous when Duncan is so deeply embedded into the matrix of that team.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: How so?*



alphaorange said:


> #1) Any guy can be slowed down. If Kobe could take over anytime he wanted, they would have won every close game. I don't see where he would elevate Curry's game at all. They double Kobe...he passes into Curry...Curry is doubled or tripled..bad shot or TO. Plus to get him we will make other voids on the team.
> 
> #2) KG would take a similar trade except he would fill the voids created by the trade better than they were AND offer shot-blocking and more offense. The team would be much better balanced.
> 
> This team with Kobe would be a stronger team with Frye and Lee as his team mates, rather than Curry and Juan the mystery PF. Plus, including Eddie in the trade would allow us to keep more of the young guys. Like I said, it'd probably take a third team because the Lakers are set at center. Have to re-rout him to Atlanta or someplace that would have players the Lakers would need/want....which would depend on who they would draft. They would have 2 first rounders, maybe more. I think all 3 teams could benefit in a big way.


I agree with you that the team would subsequentially have to make additional moves to accomodate Kobe but that does not mean that trading for KG makes more sense. Like I said, take a look at the Lakers and Wolves and you'd easily see why Kobe is the superior player to KG. If you also think that KG is a better offensive player than Mr.81 himself, you need to watch the game more.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Okay, oh wise kobewan*



HB said:


> The game does not work that way. A frontcourt of Curry and Garnett is instantly one of the best in the game. Marbury and Kobe might sound nice on paper until you realize that Kobe dominates the ball like no other, making Marbury ineffective.


Dude, I've had more concerns about Marbury and Kobe than you think. I personally don't like the combination of the two but there is always a possibility of it working. It's clear now that Marbury would differ to Kobe because we all know whose the better player. I think we'd need a better coach but their is some sort of balance that can be reached between Marbury, Kobe and Curry where they all can perform. We all know that Marbury and Kobe can keep teams honest on the perimeter which should only open up Curry's game even more. If we work the drive and dish game with Marbury, we could be alright because I think people forget how effective a shooter Kobe is with range. Still, it's a very delicate balance.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Come on.....Mr 81?*

OK...so he had a good game. He shot what? 60%. Very good indeed, but it also means he jacked up all sorts of shots. To be honest, I thought JCs 52 was more impressive. 16 baskets in a row and he sat out the last 7+ minutes + he shot 67%. I would wager if KG took 40 damned shots on a hot game, he'd score 70+ at least. Just to be clear...Kobe is the best offensive player in the game, but Kobe causes holes in the team by virtue of the position he plays and the required trade bait, and while KG also causes the same holes, he also fills them back up and then some. Kobe gives us offense and nothing more. KG improves our offense, our rebounding, and our shot-blocking, while also being a very good passer. Curry would benefit from him. I don't see how Curry would benefit any more from Kobe than he would, say, JC. 

Also, saying KG couldn't lead his team is another one of your completely off base remarks. Finals 2003:

KG: 27/15.7/51%

KB: 32/5/43%

His career numbers in the playoffs are: 22.3/13.4/5/2...and 46%. How the hell can ANYONE say he folded? Dumb.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*And.....*

KG had nowhere near the team KB had. Take away Shaq, and Kobe is still lookin for that first ring. End of story.


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

and at the end of the day we'll probably end up with a more realistic scenario. like a sign and trade with seattle for rashard lewis.

if not we'll go out with the same team as this years. remember we were a .500 team after the bad start and before all the injuries. we're still young and meshing together. what if all we really needed was just a little more time with the current group. we wont know how all this turns out until november.


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> and at the end of the day we'll probably end up with a more realistic scenario. like a sign and trade with seattle for rashard lewis.
> 
> if not we'll go out with the same team as this years. remember we were a .500 team after the bad start and before all the injuries. we're still young and meshing together. what if all we really needed was just a little more time with the current group. we wont know how all this turns out until november.


This is the first good post ive seen on this board in a while lol.

The one probelm is I think this group we have now is nothing more then a first round exit playoff team in a horrid east. So I do think a move needs to be made this offseason. Not alot just like one solid move and then let the team mesh together.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*I think everyone here knows*

that we are unlikely to make an impact deal. Its fun to think about and if you get the chance to get a KG or Kobe without gutting your team, you do it. Thats all these posts are about. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

*Re: I think everyone here knows*



alphaorange said:


> that we are unlikely to make an impact deal. Its fun to think about and if you get the chance to get a KG or Kobe without gutting your team, you do it. Thats all these posts are about. Nothing more, nothing less.


actually i do think we have a shot at an impact deal. its just everybody is caught up in the whole kobe, KG fiasco(including me a few days ago). only thing is i realized that we'd be giving possibly too much young talent for a guy who could opt out after 2 years if he doesnt see results. that of course would put us back at square 1.

I believe rashard could have just as great an impact on our team as kobe could. for starters he wouldnt cost as much keeping our team pretty much intact. 2nd his game really complements what we are trying to do. feed eddy the ball, he gets doubled/tripled, kick it out to rashard for the 3. he's a long 3 that has an inside/outside game and also rebounds well. He would be the ideal choice IMO.

all isiah has to do is work his charm and convince him that NY is the only place he would want to go. and we all know zeke is a charmer


----------



## CocaineisaHelluvaDrug (Aug 24, 2006)

neither deal has a cat in hells chance of happening but if they did then id say that kobe is a better fit than KG,simply because KG relies more on service to him than creating himself and everybody on the knicks has an aversion to passing the ball


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*yeahhhhh....I'm going to have to gp ahead and disagree...*

on that one. KG has been on all sorts of teams with all sorts of PGs and has ALWAYS put up numbers. Being teamed with Marbury, Collins, Qrich, and Curry won't slow him down at all. Got to keep Lee, though.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Okay, oh wise kobewan*



HB said:


> The game does not work that way. A frontcourt of Curry and Garnett is instantly one of the best in the game. Marbury and Kobe might sound nice on paper until you realize that Kobe dominates the ball like no other, making Marbury ineffective.


Kobe is actually a pretty good ball mover. As much as I give him so much respect on the basketball court for his scoring ability, it's his passing ability that even has the Lakers remotely competitive. When you consider that no one on that team aside from Lamar Odom can create a shot for themselves, it's a clear indication that Kobe's doing something more than just scoring the ball. Although I still do not like Marbury and Kobe together in the front-court, the both of them should keep the defense honest and do what we intended to do this offseason by freeing up Eddy Curry in the post.

For a chance of Kobe on my team, I'd ditch Marbury in a New York second.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Come on.....Mr 81?*



alphaorange said:


> OK...so he had a good game. He shot what? 60%. Very good indeed, but it also means he jacked up all sorts of shots. To be honest, I thought JCs 52 was more impressive. 16 baskets in a row and he sat out the last 7+ minutes + he shot 67%. I would wager if KG took 40 damned shots on a hot game, he'd score 70+ at least. Just to be clear...Kobe is the best offensive player in the game, but Kobe causes holes in the team by virtue of the position he plays and the required trade bait, and while KG also causes the same holes, he also fills them back up and then some. Kobe gives us offense and nothing more. KG improves our offense, our rebounding, and our shot-blocking, while also being a very good passer. Curry would benefit from him. I don't see how Curry would benefit any more from Kobe than he would, say, JC.
> 
> Also, saying KG couldn't lead his team is another one of your completely off base remarks. Finals 2003:
> 
> ...


What's dumb is you thinking that a guy scoring the 2nd most amount of points in the history of the NBA (amidst triple teams), is somehow just a "good game;" compareable to 50 points that we see on numerous occassions occur in the NBA. Hell, Kobe himself scored 50 or more for 9 seperate occassions during this season on 50%-60% shooting. 

You can play the "what if" game all you want regarding KG but the fact of the matter is that the problem with him is that he's not willing to take those 40 shots. One of the few flaws with him is his reluctance to chuck the ball and score the ball in the clutch. It's been publicized very much so I'm sure you heard about it. I'm not saying KG is an extraordinary talent that I would not want on my team. The numbers reflect just how talented a player he is. What I am saying is that he does not change the game as much as Kobe does.

This is exactly why we need a guy like Kobe moreso than KG. The team KG has assembled around him featured one guy whose a quasi all-star caliber player with Ricky Davis, a PG that was one of the better players in the Eastern Conference the year before with Mike James, Mark Blount who played great for them and a cast of other very talented role players that all play defense and respectable enough to guard on offense. Kobe has had Lamar Odom and a cast of guys that would not even be in the league had they not shared the same team as one of the games greatest talents. The proof is in the pudding with this one. *Your a complete idiot if you can't see a distinct difference between Kobe Bryant and Jamal Crawford. You keep up talk like that one and I'll make those statements of yours my signature. It should get a nice chuckle out of everyone.*


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: And.....*



alphaorange said:


> KG had nowhere near the team KB had. Take away Shaq, and Kobe is still lookin for that first ring. End of story.


If you watched the Lakers this season, you'd notice a good portion of those guys that have significant roles on that team, would not even be in the NBA had it not been for Kobe being on that team. He got a CBA caliber player to be a key starter on his team for two seasons when the guy never even sniffed playing time before. 

KG has a cast of pretty solid role players that still have not made the playoffs even after Sprewell and Cassell bolted. Please, don't give me that bull**** about how Kobe would not have any rings without Shaq. Shaq would not have had his first 3 if he had not had Kobe and who knows how that may have tempered his mindset to winning the 4th one he did with Dwayne Wade. Experience is a key factor in winning and if Kobe wasn't around to be his sidekick all those years to give him some playoff experience, who knows if he would have had what it took to be what he is now. END OF STORY.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: I think everyone here knows*



ChosenFEW said:


> actually i do think we have a shot at an impact deal. its just everybody is caught up in the whole kobe, KG fiasco(including me a few days ago). only thing is i realized that we'd be giving possibly too much young talent for a guy who could opt out after 2 years if he doesnt see results. that of course would put us back at square 1.
> 
> I believe rashard could have just as great an impact on our team as kobe could. for starters he wouldnt cost as much keeping our team pretty much intact. 2nd his game really complements what we are trying to do. feed eddy the ball, he gets doubled/tripled, kick it out to rashard for the 3. he's a long 3 that has an inside/outside game and also rebounds well. He would be the ideal choice IMO.
> 
> all isiah has to do is work his charm and convince him that NY is the only place he would want to go. and we all know zeke is a charmer


I don't know about Rashard. I would not be disappointed if we got him but I just keep feeling as though he'll be infected with the Tim Thomas virus (and I liked Tim Thomas' game). The guy has a game that resembles him so much and ironically had his best year during a contract year. He does stretch the defense for us but does nothing much of anything else. I think our main concern should be improving our defense because with everyone healthy, we're not to bad at shooting the ball whereas we're 25th in points scored by opponents. Still, he'd be an upgrade over what we presently have at the 3 spot. I just feel a guy like Josh Childress would help us keep the present team intact and still get the job done on both ends of the floor but not nearly as well offensively.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: yeahhhhh....I'm going to have to gp ahead and disagree...*



alphaorange said:


> on that one. KG has been on all sorts of teams with all sorts of PGs and has ALWAYS put up numbers. Being teamed with Marbury, Collins, Qrich, and Curry won't slow him down at all. Got to keep Lee, though.


Garnett's had been teamed with Mike James, Ricky Davis, Trenton Hassell, Mark Blount, Criag Smith (solid 2nd round pick), Troy Hudson and two young quasi all-stars in the making with Randy Foye and Rashad McCants and still missed the playoffs. That's a talented veteran squad that is capable of more than we currently are. What miracle is he going to work with us? He'll make us a contender but he won't make us better than if we had Kobe. Kobe's currently working with nothing and has managed to do what KG has not; make the playoffs.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Those are some of the dumbest things...*

Solid supporting cast? If you think that, you don't know squat about ball. Two quasi stars? There has been NOTHING to suggest STARDOM, except your opinion based on..oh...not much. As far as Garnett not being willing to take 40 shots...well, thats just dumb, too. Kobe can get them BECAUSE HE ALWAYS HAS THE BALL. Garnett cannot because he needs to get the ball where he would be effective. Duh. I also saw Thompson's 73 and Gervins 63, and neither had the benefit of a 3 pointer. They were nothing except a display of selfishness designed to win a scoring title. Kobe's was no less selfish. I'm glad you're a Kobesexual (great term, Kitty), and he IS a great player, but he ain't all that. He doesn't have rings w/o Shaq, but Shaq DOES have a ring without him and Wade is not in Kobes class. So tell me, since Shaq is old now and still won a ring...who was more important?

Some more....I watched the 81 point game and he was not constantly doubled and tripled. That crap about so many guys hittin' 50 is a load, too. JC's game was amazing. The heat tried everything to stop him and couldn't do it. Just one of the most impressive scoring games I have seen. 30 shots, 52 points and ONLY 4 FTs.

I've let your "theory" of how Curry and another star are enough to win it all slide for too long. Fact is, Curry hasn't even been an all-star and if Oden was drafted in the East, likely wouldn't sniff it for a while if at all. Let's recap: You say you can build a title team around a flawed non allstar and a real star with just a supporting cast of cast-offs. Give me an example of that EVER happening before in recent times (last 20 years or so). If you think of one, break it down play to player. Lets see how good you really are.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Those are some of the dumbest things...*



alphaorange said:


> Solid supporting cast? If you think that, you don't know squat about ball. Two quasi stars? There has been NOTHING to suggest STARDOM, except your opinion based on..oh...not much. As far as Garnett not being willing to take 40 shots...well, thats just dumb, too. Kobe can get them BECAUSE HE ALWAYS HAS THE BALL. Garnett cannot because he needs to get the ball where he would be effective. Duh. I also saw Thompson's 73 and Gervins 63, and neither had the benefit of a 3 pointer. They were nothing except a display of selfishness designed to win a scoring title. Kobe's was no less selfish. I'm glad you're a Kobesexual (great term, Kitty), and he IS a great player, but he ain't all that. He doesn't have rings w/o Shaq, but Shaq DOES have a ring without him and Wade is not in Kobes class. So tell me, since Shaq is old now and still won a ring...who was more important?
> 
> Some more....I watched the 81 point game and he was not constantly doubled and tripled. That crap about so many guys hittin' 50 is a load, too. JC's game was amazing. The heat tried everything to stop him and couldn't do it. Just one of the most impressive scoring games I have seen. 30 shots, 52 points and ONLY 4 FTs.
> 
> I've let your "theory" of how Curry and another star are enough to win it all slide for too long. Fact is, Curry hasn't even been an all-star and if Oden was drafted in the East, likely wouldn't sniff it for a while if at all. Let's recap: You say you can build a title team around a flawed non allstar and a real star with just a supporting cast of cast-offs. Give me an example of that EVER happening before in recent times (last 20 years or so). If you think of one, break it down play to player. Lets see how good you really are.


So one of the most effective scorers in NBA history taking 40 shots on a team with a supporting cast you considered to be horrendous is somehow "dumb." And the contradictions never stop with you. I would think the more shots the better if you don't have the options to really make the most of them. After all, we are looking at a game that is predicated on one team scoring more points than the other. Can't do that if guys around you can't put the ball in the hole, so why not take more shots? Unless of course your wrong and Garnett has some solid veteran players around him that might not get him very far in the playoffs but at the very least a playoff berth. I could care less whether you happened to be around the time when you first saw Jesus Christ don a hippie like hair doo and a pair of flip flops claiming to be the son of God. You could consider guys putting the ball in the hole at a high percentage selfish all you want but sometimes that actually wins games. It helped get a very unlikely Laker team to the playoffs the past two years and helped MJ capture the title as being one of the best players to grace the game. *As a star, your suppose to take over situations so you can't fault a star for doing exactly that.* You can also continue to ignore the fact that Shaq probably would not have had a 4th ring without Kobe helping in him gaining the experience and knowledge to win on a big stage. I realize it's like talking to a wall with some people.

LOL, and screw any "what ifs" with Oden. The fact is that he's not in the East and with guys like Shaq and Ben Wallace getting up there, there are spots available at the 5 spot for big men like Curry. Even if he did not become a consistent all-star, what does that prove? Sam Cassell has been one of the best players in the league over the past decade or so yet he has made only 1 all-star appearance. There are snubs every year and it is not because they are not good but simply because their is but so much room on a team. There have been guys every year that make it and don't deserve to like MJ during his years with the Wizards and Vince Carter during his final years with the Raptors. Them being all-stars did nothing to have educated fans overlook that fact.

If you look closely, I only said you can build a team around two stars. It's happened with Kobe and Shaq; it's happened with Duncan and any sidekick he's had over the past couple of years, and it's happened with the Heat and Pistons.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Stupid response....*

The teams that win it have lots of talent. Don't act like its ever been different. You're trying to color situations to fit your vision at the expense of fact. Don't twist...give me an example. The biggest problem with your post is that you under-rate people when it suits your case and over-rate them when convenient. You are wrong about what made MJ the best but what's new? Selfishness may win a game but it doesn't make champions. Never has and never will. Thinking otherwise is stupid. You hate being wrong but you are most of the time. What an opinionated buffoon. Just like your trade proposal above.....pure crap and not based in reality. And I have no idea what the hell you are talking about with KG. He was in the playoffs...outplayed everyone...and lost to a better team. How is that on him? Christ, one year he averaged 24/19. Let me know the last player to be that impressive. Just like with Dirk, you don't know your butt from first base. Why don't you just talk facts...complete facts, not twink selected specials. Lets keep things simple, like yes/no....true/false. That should eliminate your prancing and dancing.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Stupid response indeed....*



alphaorange said:


> The teams that win it have lots of talent. Don't act like its ever been different. You're trying to color situations to fit your vision at the expense of fact. Don't twist...give me an example. The biggest problem with your post is that you under-rate people when it suits your case and over-rate them when convenient. You are wrong about what made MJ the best but what's new? Selfishness may win a game but it doesn't make champions. Never has and never will. Thinking otherwise is stupid. You hate being wrong but you are most of the time. What an opinionated buffoon. Just like your trade proposal above.....pure crap and not based in reality. And I have no idea what the hell you are talking about with KG. He was in the playoffs...outplayed everyone...and lost to a better team. How is that on him? Christ, one year he averaged 24/19. Let me know the last player to be that impressive. Just like with Dirk, you don't know your butt from first base. Why don't you just talk facts...complete facts, not twink selected specials. Lets keep things simple, like yes/no....true/false. That should eliminate your prancing and dancing.


Dude, your so full of **** that I think I'm going to start ignoring your posts because they are not worth the time and money. I love it how you attempt to devalue my argument by claiming it was backed by noting more than opinion and then have you submit to me nothing more than opinion yourself. The one "fact," and I do use the term loosely, is the "24/19" stat. The funny thing about all of that is that Garnett played just 3 games in the playoff series. Stick to the funny papers because you do a good job of making a joke of yourself.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*You should read them......and learn something*

While he perhaps played in just three games where he averaged those particular numbers, I think if you follow the link below, you will indeed see just how much you don't know about KG....just like everything else. Hard to devalue something of so little value already. Every board needs a fool.....you are ours.


http://www.nba.com/playerfile/kevin_garnett/career_stats.html


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Plus......*

"because they are not worth the time and money.'

Please don't pay. I think I'd be willing to donate my wisdom to you for free. I'll consider it my cause du jour. Because a mind is a terrible thing to waste.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Plus......*



alphaorange said:


> "because they are not worth the time and money.'
> 
> Please don't pay. I think I'd be willing to donate my wisdom to you for free. I'll consider it my cause du jour. Because a mind is a terrible thing to waste.


I've forgotten more about basketball than you know. I just find it interesting in all of this that you'd find a way to whine to people about how others are attacking you when you clearly attempt to bait me into arguements. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, we're done with this debate.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*You, my friend*

are a liar. When have i ever whined? You also need to read your own damned posts. You said ignorant people like me..blah, blah, blah, re: Peja. Then you claimed it wasn't about me. Are you retarded? Just beyond moronic. And still the boards' biggest liar.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: You, my friend*



alphaorange said:


> are a liar. When have i ever whined? You also need to read your own damned posts. You said ignorant people like me..blah, blah, blah, re: Peja. Then you claimed it wasn't about me. Are you retarded? Just beyond moronic. And still the boards' biggest liar.


In response to the ignorant thing, if the shoe fits wear it.

In reponse to calling me a liaring, I'm rubber and your glue so whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.


----------

