I think one thing that makes this guy, and you walshsexuals, questionable is the way in which Donnie (funny little name for a 100-year-old) worked Marbury, when he could have been a man and told him he wanted him out, from the get go.
As for "dumping" Randolph and Crawford, they were our only desirable pieces, hardly dumping when teams actually like them. In return, we got lesser value, IMO, but saved cap: no difference, there.
The only Walsh move I was ever impressed with was the James trade.
A little move, like drafting Gallo, a one-dimensional, self-important bust, over a stud like Lopez, in my opinion, will ruin his legacy, unless this team becomes better... soon. Lopez will be an all-star center, he and Howard will have legendary battles. We could have had Lopez, as the heir to Ewing's throne, but D'Antoni is a family man and puts them first
As I've said before, a lineup of Marbury, Crawford, Zach, Chandler and Lopez would have been a playoff team, with the ability to advance and improve (with time, especially 2010). Now, you want a championship team, by 2010, when we don't even have a good foundation of players.
Also, Randolph and Crawford cannot be judged by the fact that the Knicks failed, while they were here, simply because they had to play with Eddy Curry. In fact, Crawford especially deserves some slack, Curry followed him his whole career. Behind Johnson, watch Jamal shine and the Hawks improve. If Zach gets on a good team, where he can be a second option to a good player, same thing. Zach on the Spurs, with Duncan at center, would be legendary.