Optimism 4 2005

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ted

Benchwarmer
Who are you George Bush you think you can win arguments just by saying I'm right over and over. I don't disagree that if you get a good deal moving Marbury is smart. I just say that clearing the cap never works as far as I can rmember. Tell me when it has and Ill listen a little more to your point
 

Ted

Benchwarmer
I've also been trying to look at the Knicks roster optimistically. Optimistically we catch some breaks some guys step up someone coaches Marbury and we're a playoff team. Of course no one could step up and we could suck. This is why the game is played on the court not forums.
 

bobs3304

Benchwarmer
Listen carefully.....please.

Here's my point, for the very last time. Think this over before responding. It's important you understand every facet to this arguement:









1.) Marbury is Overpaid. Due 76 Million in the next 4 years. He is nearing 30 years old, and it's no secret that his knee is starting to degenerate. Playing 80 games at the minutes he does doesn't help. If we keep him, the only way to ensure that his knee doesn't blow out is by limiting his minutes, which, in turn, hurts our chances of winning, seeing as how we've become accustomed to having him be our go-to-guy in the 1st 3 quarters of games...

2.) Marbury has not been voted an All-Star in a few years. Therefore how well his jersey sells is misleading, and to be honest, unimportant.

3.) Marbury is a fan-favorite, and the face of the franchise. But while he has refined his talents since he was 19, he hasn't ADDED anything to his game. The skills he came into the league with or the same he has now, only slightly sharpened.

4.) Marbury is incredibly talented, but he's a SG stuck in a PG's body.

5.) Marbury is not clutch, and shys away from taking big shots. His defense is just as average as it was when he came into the league. If anything, it's slowly gotten worse.

6.) Keeping Marbury on the team, even if we slightly limit his minutes as mentioned before, will STEAL minutes from the development of Nate Robinson, who is a great talent, and from Crawford and Ariza. Why you ask? B/c Q's natural position is a borderline G/F, and with the roster the way it is now, there are too many players needing minutes. Ariza and Nate will be the odd men out, with Timmy and Q using up most of the minutes at SF, and Crawford, Marbury, and Q spending pretty much all the time at SG. Keeping Marbury means Crawford will be asked to play PG whenever he gets the chance (to add to his minutes), meaning Nate will get nearly zero playing time.

7.) Nate Robinson, as I've said recently, is very similar in style, talent, and build as Marbury. He's smaller, but just as explosive, can push the ball up and play solid Defense, and is the same type of Offensive PG as Steph. Having both is redundant, and Nate certainly won't be dealt...

8.) The offense is stagnant with Marbury running the point. He's become so accustomed to Pick and Rolls that he relies on it almost single-handedly. The rest of the players on the floor stand around, and there's no movement within the offense. This is part of the reason why Crawford is a chucker. There are no plays per say designed for him...

9.) The offense runs more smoothly with Crawford running the point. Guys like Ariza respond better to him, and he pushes the ball and is taller, thus creating more matchup problems. This is exactly why Isiah got him...b/c when we played AGAINST him when he was with Chicago, he'd light us up and get their offense flowing.

10.) If Isiah is willing to trade Marbury, then it will get done. Don't give me this "No teams want Marbury" crap. Atlanta would easily make that trade. I can see Dallas possibly doing it, as well Cleveland (b/c it doesn't look like they'll land Hughes or JJ), and a number of other teams. That's the least of my worries. My single worry is that it's too late, and that Isiah doesn't have the balls to make such a bold move...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Let the next words out of your mouth be nothing, or "I agree"....


Peace.
 

Ted

Benchwarmer
furious lord said:
:afro:
With all the so-called sports "analysts" repeatedly bashing Isaiah Thomas in typical New York "kick a man when he's down and stomp on his nuts for good measure" fashion after another bad season, I could see with all the crazy trade ideas and fantasy free agents that my fellow fans are starting to feel the effects. New York is "second guess city", a place where you can go from being a genius to a moron in the same season. I remember when the Knicks were 16 and 13, and all the columnists and analysts praised Isaiah for resurrecting the Knicks. Then after the rash of injuries and bad play, he became the laughing stock of all GMs. Somehow though, I am optimistic about next year. Yes fam, y'all can save this post and come at me , but I think Isiah will bring the Knicks back to respectability. Here's why-
1. Most sports talk show hosts bash Isiah for trading Mohammed. I didn't have a problem with it, because even though Mohammed was productive, in the games that I WATCHED, he consistently got beat down the court and was late on defensive rotation, leading to him often getting benched. Check his minutes. Most of his points came off of putbacks, and at center he only averaqed less than one block per game. And another thing, what stats don't show is how many times he WAS ABUSED IN THE PAINT by any starter 6'11 and over with any kind of post game. I lost count of how many times teams so easily got into the paint and dunked with him in the vicinity. DO NOT BE FOOLED BY HIS PRODUCTION with the Spurs. I saw him constantly getting beat even in the finals. With the mid-level exception, we will get a free agent center who along with Frye should solve our shot blocking problems.
2. In most of the Knick losses, the opposing teams played zone defense to take away Marbury and force us to shoot jumpers. The problem was we didn't have good coaching and consistent outside shooting. With q Rich, eventhough his shooting percentage was down last year, we should beat the zone because you cannot leave Q-Rich open, he lead the league in 3 point makes, and can also post. Those of you who hated the k Thomas trade, I liked it because K thomas on offense was a one dimensional jump shooter who at the 4 could not post up. On top of that, he couldn't run the floor very well, you can almost count on one hand how many fast break points we got in each loss. We could could do a sign and trade and get a guy like Swift, or move Frye to the 4(he can run and shoot threes) which would allow us to break the zone. We had no problem scoring when teams played us one on one, so now that we added some more size and another shooter, we'll score more easily.
3. The draft- I like the addition of Nate Robinson more than Frye. All you have to do is envision Robinson, Crawford and Ariza coming off the bench (maybe Lee or Frye) and you got mad energy and defensive intensity. trust me, barring injury, if we keep our young guys we'll have one of the most exciting benches in the league. Last year b4 all the injuries we had a productive bench, but this year, our rookies along with Ariza will be scary. Isiah is turning this team into a running squad, with in today's NBA with the zone D is essential. Our young guys have the potential to be something special.
4. Quit all the trade talk about Marbury- I would trade Marbury only for young talented size including draft picks if we are indeed rebuilding. If we cannot get that, keep him. He is virtually unstoppable, can score on anyone at will, and is only 28. With the right coach, he'll even play defense. In fact, him and Crawford were good at playing the passing lanes, and looked bad last year cause we had no shotblockers. Most guards get beat off the dribble but have the luxury of help defense. We had none. He's labeled as a shoot first point guard, -I don't buy into media labels, they never let a guy shed a negative image until he wins a championship anyway, then somehow he becomes Jesus- he only averaged 13 shots a game and still put in 8.5 assists on a jump shooting team. The kids a beast, surround him with talent, then we see what we do with him from there.
5. Lastly, When Isaiah first came aboard, we had a terrible, unwatchable starting five. And everybody in the media said there was no way we could get any talent anytime soon with all the bad contracts. I do remember Isaiah saying he would have to trade to get players that he could trade, so all of his moves I have no problem with, cause he is really tryting to improve the product on the court. As opposed to a GM that would sit there and do nothing. Eventhough it has not translated on the court yet, I think he is still in the process of getting what he wants, a running team that could also defend. He's only been here a year and a half, and most good GMs don't turn a bad salary cap strapped franchise around until at least 3 years. So give the man another season or two before we run him out!

I've wasted the last three days and I apologize for getting caught up in a pointless argument. This is a great post and actually constructive can't believe I missed it in wasting everyone's time arguing.

1. Nazr is a great piece for the Spurs but does nothing on a lotto team. The only Isiah move I really take exception to was Mo Taylor. He's a good 12th man but that salary is out of this world. For 900,000 ok but 9 mill? It's also significantly longer than Vin and Mooch. But Zeke is clearly more interested in what someone brings on the court than on the payroll,which I respect. I would have built around defense and team play and character but NBA teams aren't exactly knocking down my door to be their GM. Zeke should get us to respectability and then if he can manage to rebuild while winning a little I'd be thoroughly impressed

2. I was very skeptical of Q at first, but him and Jamal and TT next to Marbury is a lot of talent. A good coach could might motivate them.

3. Also more excited about Nate than Frye. Mostly cause I'm always skeptial of bigmen in the draft. Nate is a great fit and could be the catalyst to getting us in the playoffs.

4. Marury will not be traded. Thank you for saying that he also should not be traded unless something decent is on the table. If Crawford is really as good a creator as people seem to think he is, he can do it next to Marbury is a coach can convince Marbury that he can't win unless he plays in a system.

5 Also a good point. Layden couldn't have us in this position. Really people have been overcritical of Zeke and he has had the balls to shake things up and try and win at the sme time. If he pulls it off he's one of the leagues better execs.
 

bobs3304

Benchwarmer
Dear Ted,


Thank you for being a pussy and not responding whatsoever to my most recent post, which was my last attempt at explaining why he CAN AND SHOULD be dealt. You obviously have alot of confidence in your own opionions, seeing as how you feel the need to quote someone else.


Love,

Bobs3304
 

Ted

Benchwarmer
Listen Bob I can't believe I wasted my time arguing with you. You haven't presented a convincing case. I know what you're saying and I disagree.

NO ONE WANTS HIM

If you say he's so bad in NY why would anyone take him?

Other teams are not stupid. You are right that the opinion is that you can't win with him and his salary is huge. Cleveland will be best off waiting as will Atlanta. I don't think anyone else wants him and unless you call Danny Ferry and say are you going to ruin LeBron's team with Marbury and he says yes or the Hawks say they want him I won't be convinced.

OK now Im done.
 

bobs3304

Benchwarmer
You're officially an idiot, and didn't read my entire post. You obviously browsed over it. Thank you for proving you're a big pussy and can't defend you're own convictions...

Lemme spell it our for you - this has less to do with Marbury and more to do with the team.


Grow up.
 

Ted

Benchwarmer
I understand your point. I'm also thinking about the team. I disagree with you. There is absolutely no way of knowing who's right becasue the Knicks can't both trade and not trade Marbury. I think that Thomas has done a good job with what he had and that this team could be ok with a few breaks. You think that this team is terrible and we should strip the team and rebuild from scratch. Both models are used and accepted in the NBA. There is no wrong or right here.
 

bobs3304

Benchwarmer
NO.....again, wow...


you're not fuckin paying attention. I don't wanna strip the team. I like most of what we have. The only players I want traded are Marbury and another PF......that's it.


Try paying attention next time. Repeating myself 4 friggin times is starting to get annoying.


Edit: Actually, it was annoying after the first time...
 

KnicksFan20

Rotation player
the knicks would be better without marbury....unless we can get rid of the 8 friggin pf we have and get one good one......
 

Ted

Benchwarmer
Try learning how to interact with other people next time.

THat is what I call stripping the team. Without Marbury what do you have? Crawford, a jumpshooter who has the skill to play the point but has never shown any indication that he can. His biggest weakness last year was that we never drove and settled for shots, name a contender who doesn't have somone who can penatrate. Q, a jump shooter who can also post up but didn't get his own shot at all in Pheonix, didn't see him much in LA. Tim Thomas, a jump shooter who's afraid of the lane. Nate, the only guy who can penatrate. I really like him and I'm not a big believer in height, but 5-7 is pretty small and the biggest knock is that he's not a pure point. So you lose Marbury for a mini-Marbury? Nate is, in my opinion, best off coming in off the bench becasuse his weaknesses will be exposed in extensive minutes. Frye is a nice prospect but far from a sure thing. He's been labeled as soft and while I disagree he is no banger and I have some Qs about his athleticism. Sweets has not proven that he can start and Ariza had a pretty good rookie year at 19, but he's far from a star at this point. This team has a bunch of jump shooters and some young guys inside.
Now, as for cap room. If you resign Ariza, Sweets, and take on a bigman in this magic trade you expect to find you're barely under in 07.

As I said Marbury is not that attractive and you have to find a team that's willing to take his contract instead of being patient. If LeBron wants to play with Marbury he can. But Cleveland has made their intentions to put jump shooters around LeBron pretty clear. If Ferry learned anything in San Antonio he won't do it. You put a good defensive group around LeBron and Drew Gooden and keep cap space and you're in good shape. Atlanta would be wise to continue with the youth movement and maybe get a Stro or a Curry.

So who else wants Marbury and has expiring contracts and young talent? Philly? Imagine Marbury, C-Webb, and A.I. putting you over the cap by themselves. I don't think they do it or he fits.
 

ny3nyk

Rotation player
can somebody make a post that has to do something more important that trading marbury?!?!?! nobody knows for sure if he is, all i see in these topics are arguments with bobs and some other guy he pisses off
 

bobs3304

Benchwarmer
You've def. showed your true colors son. You're a cold-blooded Marbury-jocker. It's astounding, but you're not willing to admit that trading him is actually FAR BETTER for us in the near future.

If Isiah is willing to trade Marbury, offers will come. He was traded 3 times before genius. It's not that he's not a great player, it's that, unless we can land a premiere big man this summer, there's no point in keeping him. Like I've said before, I like Marbury's heart, but with the direction we appear to be going, he just doesn't fit in. If we don't trade him now, I doubt we'll ever be able to again.

The team will be better off without Marbury (for the 10 reasons I explained in detail. But hey, you could always root for him wherever he goes. Wouldn't surprise me if you were a Suns fan 3 years ago....
 

furious lord

Benchwarmer
:afro:
As much as I love Marbury, I do not believe he is gonna finish his career as a Knick. i guess the reason why I like Starbury so much is that for so many years I watched NBA level bums play the point at NY. For years I prayed for the day Charlie Ward and Howard Eisley would be gone, and we would finally have a stud point. Next year should be the year we access what Marbury is gonna be for us. If the team shows marked improvement, maybe we keep him around. If not, I'm sad to say, he's got to go.

Only thing that worries me about Nate is at 5 foot 7 how are his knees gonna hold up after a couple of years dunking like that. Little guys don't seem to last long.
 

bobs3304

Benchwarmer
ny3nyk said:
can somebody make a post that has to do something more important that trading marbury?!?!?! nobody knows for sure if he is, all i see in these topics are arguments with bobs and some other guy he pisses off


uhh, maybe theyre pissed off b/c what i'm saying makes perfect sense, and the truth hurts.
 

portega1968

El Cacique
doh, is this the "optimism for '05" thread or Bobs' private little spitoon? shades of horry-ainge permeate the air...as for '05, I'm visualizing Marv Albert all excited as he voices a "Nate to Ariza on the break, SLAM!!! that's something I want to see repeatedly this season (not as much as seeing Nate dunk on Shaq, Duncan and Ben Wallace)... Unlike Steph, I think Nate will improve Jamal's game big time. Jamal will thrive in the break with his fellow Seattle mate...I'm hoping the playbook doesn't revolve just around Steph: for example: I wanna see an insideout game with Q or Frye posting up and drawing doubleteams and feeding slashers. Most of all, I want to see what Isiah still has in his bag from now through the Feb deadline cause its obvious he's intent on results asap.
 

bobs3304

Benchwarmer
this is the "Bobs smacks all you bitches in the face with some cold, refreshing reality" Thread.


Hope you enjoyed.
 

Ted

Benchwarmer
Yes Bob you are so smart and articulate. you are such an internet thug.

You are entitled to your opinion, but other people, including Zeke and the Dolans, seem to disagree. If there was a good offer on the table I would take it, but if anyone is Zeke's man it's Steph and I see no one else who wants to takehis salary unless they give up a bad salary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top