Yes Metro, it appears that you were right and you were wrong at the same time. Your criticism of Eddie Curry proved to be correct but your unwaivering support of Marbury proves to be illogical. No doubt Marbury is talented but he like Thomas have proved to be incapable of leading this team.
Watson has a better assist percentage than Ridnior and he's way cheaper. We need a replacement for Marbury and Watson knows how to move the ball. Unlike Curry, Miller is a defender and rebounds the ball plus he has an expiring contract. All good things. Richardson is a contract that we are stuck with unless we are willing to part with Lee or Balkman. I'm not so I say keep him.
DonChris, I can't disagree, I could understand why you think I'm illogical defending Marbury; but it has to be done...Knicks nation have bought into Isiah's propaganda that has been put against Marbury.
Isiahsexual is just a term I made up, don't get your feelings hurt or waste post on me. Take it to the private messages if you're sensitive.
Since more you're interesting in bitching than chatting, back to my thread topic
I was on hoopshype.com and T'Wolve and Laker fans said they would agree to this deal.
"I think NYK could switch Curry for Walker. 'Toine has only 2 years left, (2 next are team-options) so he would expire at the same time Marbury does."
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
You're right, back to the thread. Besides, I think we will just have to "agree to disagree" about Marbury. There is no way I will convince you that Marbury is a poor teammate and part of the problem, and there is no way that you will be able to convince me that he is good for the Knicks.
Anyway, 'Toine for Curry? Would that benefit us at all? Walker is another chucker like Crawford. If your idea is to dump salary then I like it but doesn't 'Toine have almost the same contract as Curry? What about Curry for Theo Ratliff? I know Theo is injured, but he has an expiring contract. Plus, if he get's healthy, he is not a bad defender, even for his age. A Curry at center and Jefferson at power forward combo might be attractive to the T-Wolves.
Last edited by LJ4ptplay; Dec 21, 2007 at 13:09.
all this trade talk.. imo (everyone's got one) we have almost nothing that other teams want... aside from some of our younger guys like balkman and lee, we are holding a bag of ****..
curry... who the hell will want this wide load??.. if u are a gm rebuilding , would u build your team around this fat-ass?? - ask isiah how that is working out
zach... portland gave him to us for free... is owed 50m for 3 more year after this season..
jamal... will hit for 35 on 12/15 shooting one nite, 12 the next nite on 3/15.. way too streaky..
starbury... owed 20+ mill next year.. maybe tradeable feb 09.. until then he is all ours
q-rich... has 2 more years after this year on his contract which is uninsurable vu his bad back... which i think is still balky.. pity cause i like him
james/jefferies... no need to waste space on these two
fred jones... seems to hustle... with only a 3m contract tho not worth much
malik.. one more year on 7.5m contract..
and the rest of the roster are our young guys..
maybe trade malik and starbury in feb 09.. but for who??? we will have to take back 30m in contract.. and i bet they will not be expiring ones either.. maybe just keep em, and start all over in the summer of 09...
i'm leaving now... i will check back with ya in 2014
Since I am one of the last standing Curry supporters, I have to at least ask a question.
Why is having a one dimensional defensive, shot blocking, rebounding center superior to having a one dimensional offensive center that draws double and triple teams and still has a FG percentage in the 55% range?
IMO, neither is superior.
What matters is having complimentary players.
If you have a primarily defensive guy, you'll probably need some serious firepower at PF and elsewhere. A guy at PF that can score 20 and post up etc....
If you have an offensive guy, you'll need a guy that rebounds, plays good defense, blocks some shots etc... at PF.
In Curry, we have one of the best offensive centers in the league. He already proved that last year. His numbers are down because of Zach, not because of any decline in his own skill level.
Either Zach or Curry probably has to go, but just because Curry is not Dwight Howard, Yao Ming, Chris Kaman, or Amare Stoudemire doesn't mean he's a bum or that we can't win with him if we had the right pieces.
If we had some consistent outside shooting at SG and SF and put Lee at PF Curry would blossom even further offensively because it would be harder to double team him or open up our shooters. We could live with 7 rebounds a game from Curry with Lee at PF getting 35+ minutes because Lee would pick up 12 or more rebounds.
As much as I hate the idea of getting Artest because of the potential off court and locker room distractions, that's the kind of player we need instead of Zach. Another would be a Richard Jefferson, Rashard Lewis etc.... We need consistent scoring and shooting at SF and SG not at PF.
You say the Knicks were 2 and 1 when they benched Marbury. Again your statement of watching every Knick game comes into question Marbury Nut Hugger, because the talk of benching Marbury came after the loss to the Heat, you remember that game right, Marbury floating the ball to who the **** knows in crunch time, after getting schooled by bull**** ass Jason williams, you remember that game right homey? And the game before that being schooled by run of the mill Jameer Nelson... You say you a knick fan, then you should know about these things.
You bring up 2-1, it is because of Crawford that we were 2-1.. nobody else. And that one loss, is because Marbury couldn't put a hand in the face of Gibson, and the Cavs beat us with 3's. So Marbury had an effect of the game, a losing one.
you bring up those games where Marbury was benched, well in all those games he still played over 30 minutes in each, with the exception of the Denver game which was a blowout... So stop the **** again son, and yea it all of a sudden was Marbury starting that made the Knicks win those games right, damn fool. After that Boston game, when the knicks needed a win bad, needed to step up, which Knick player stepped up to the plate, and hit the winning shot, and was the leader that the KNicks needed... JC Superstar was that man, on the court AND in the locker room.
And okay, so yea Crawford hasn't lead a team to the Playoffs... I understand that, but how is that a useful statement to make in this debate. He was only a starter one year with the bulls, and that was the year they traded Brand and drafted Chandler and Curry, it wasn't his team to lead to the playoffs dumbazz. I'm not a Marbury hater like some of the peeps on this site, I know that it was not Marbury's fault that he hasn't won a playoff series, but your argument about Crawford not leading a team to the playoffs are basically the same argument people use as to why Marbury hasn't won a playoff series. So you need to check your arguments homey, unless you agree with those who say Marbury is unable to lead a team pass getting into the playoffs.. hmmm
Son there is no debate here, you are trying to fish and find one, but there is none, Marbury is not better than Crawford this season, With all the crazy bull**** shots Crawford Takes he is only shooting percentage points lower than Marbury. His assist are basically the same as Marbury, his points are higher, his defense is better, his leadership is better... What exactly is the argument here? Suck it up and admit that so far this year Crawford is the Knicks best player.. point blank...
Marbury is a talented player that can take it to the hoop and shoot from outside, but he's also a self centered player, distraction on and off the court, and a player whose game goes down a notch in the last few minutes when it counts.
Crawford is willing to take tough shots when it counts, stands up under pressure, and has some great games, but overall he's a bad shooter "for a SG", very inconsistent, turnover prone, and doesn't play much defense.
To be quite honest, we'd be better off without either of them. However, we are stuck with Marbury for a couple of more years until his contract runs out and replacing Crawford is not the #1 priority. Replacing Qrich and breaking up Curry and Zach are the #1 priorities. We can't win with our SF shooting 30% +/- and/or Curry and Zach on the floor at the same time.
Trading Marbury is not an option because there are no other teams in the league dumb enough to want him. The best thing to happen there is for him to continue to pout/grieve/be injured/be suspended. The more he can stay away from the team, the better.
The long term solution for the Knicks won't come to being until both those selfish losers are gone. Then they can gradually start building things back up, and they SHOULD get some great draft picks in the near future. Then they can gradually weed out other problems and build their team.
For now, the Knicks are better off with Jones/Robinson getting all of Marbury's minutes, and Lee getting as many of Randolphs minutes as possible.
I presented the facts, stats, assessments of all the games I watched of the Knicks, and past history Marbury has with the Knicks particulary in his first season where he took us to the playoffs. I'm not saying Marbury is the solution, but he isn't the problem. If that can't convince you then you're being too delusional.
It would benefit us because Toine' contract expire. I wouldn't want Toine here, but I would do anything to get under the cap for once.
You're right; Theo has the best contract its a huge fat one(no homo) and an expiring. Getting it would help us in the best way. But I think T'Wolves are trying to get under the cap too.
knicklover, we can't win with Curry or build around him.
His love for the game of basketball is most questionable more than any other guy on this team.
His work ethic is awful.
He hasn't had any significant improvement in the last 5 years(rebounding, defense)
He's too out of shape now, he takes too long to get in position.
Curry moves well for a fatass, but if he lost 20-30 pounds, his agility would be amazing. Thats where his work ethic holds him back.
Curry is what he is. Isiah tricked you into thinking he's a franchise big man, now get over it and move on. We need to look to better things because Curry isn't. Curry is happy with his money and isn't a hungry basketball player anymore; he's not going to play hard for a new deal like a guy from the NBDL or some of that caliber. Having Curry on this team will only hold us back since he doesn't progress at an adequate or desired rate.
little man, you type a lot these days but haven't said anything relevant since the summer where you were screaming "**** RANDOLPH" in every post, even though I found that amusing.
Crawford is the biggest loser on this team, he has no playoff experience and has been in the NBA for 7 years already.
BTW, when Knicks usually win(lol @ how that sounds), majority of the credit goes to Randolph first.
You mention Nelson and Williams; do you realize how many players I can bring up that ass raped Jamal Crawford without spitting on it? I'm not going to do that because you already know. I'm here to educate you, teach you what you don't know, not chit chat on obvious ****.
When Marbury was benched his role was reduced, you can't expect much when Isiah has Marbury in the doghouse. I don't care if Isiah gave Marbury 47 minutes off the bench; Isiah is taking Marbury out of his element and sending a message to a guy who isn't the problem.
Jamal Crawford a superstar? He's a 6"5 Eddie House without the shooting and more minutes.
Crawford inability to be a leader(not just a leader scorer, but being inefficient and making the game easier for others) is my point.
Jamal didn't make it easy for Chicago when he was chucking 20-30 shots a night in losses. He hasn't done the same here.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Look at how many times Crawford was the leading score, but Bulls were averaging 90 points and giving up 100. Doesn't that sound familiar?
Crawford led a 23-59 team in scoring.
Crawford's first season as a Knick, we went 33-49. He averaged a career high of 17.7 ppg
That season Marbury was in his element 21.7 ppg and 8.1 assist
Then the next season Marbury's role was limited and we went 23-59. Crawford also was the worst starter for us that season.
Next year, 33-49.
So whats the trend here?
Does history support Crawford being a winning player?
Does Crawford's super abilities of chucking, traveling and being invisibility on defense help any team to win?
He's a loser, plain and simple.
You're just killed your argument by saying Crawford's defense is better than Marbury.
Marbury showed up defensively 5-6 times this season.
Crawford = 0
Weakest argument since people try to convince that Isiah is the savior for the Knicks.
I agree with you about Curry. I heard someone say once, "smaller guys in the NBA play basketball because they love the game, big guys in the NBA play because they can". I think that holds true with Curry. He just plays because he is big and agile, not because he wants to. If he truly loved the game and wanted to play hard his work ethic would be stronger and his development would've been quicker. As far as trading for 'Toine, looking on RealGM, it says that his contract is 32.1 mil for 3 years and Curry's is 34.5 mil for 3 years. That wouldn't benefit us at all. I don't think the T-Wolves want to trade away Ratliff's expiring contract either, but a Jefferson/Curry combo might seem worth it to them. Ahh, who am I kidding. We are in a real jam here. Our only desirable players are our young guys, which have small contracts and trading them wouldn't get us under the cap. Not to mention, the young players are the only ones I want to keep. The rest of the roster is loaded with bloated contracts that nobody wants. We're screwed. Thanks again Isiah.
Arite son how you even tryin to argue that Crawford is a good defender? Crawford is not a defender. You cant even argue hes an average defender. He constantly gets lost by picks, he cant keep no one in front of him. Ive never seen him play good defense for half a game. You cant win this arguement. Im not a crawford hater, i like him just not on this team. Hes got some nice moves on offense, you can make a nice video of him crossin over other players but to say he plays average defense, I cant respect that and I dont know where you comin from (no homo). Marbury, when he gets into his zone he can shut his opponent down. We saw it in the games that Metro watched. If you watched those games then you know what Im talkin about.
Im suprised to see anyone who still believes we can build this team around Curry. Im not gonna talk about this, im just gonna laugh.
I got one arguement that will shut down the Crawford vs Marbury debate. People say Marbury is not a real leader becuz he cant get his team past the 1st round of the playoffs. Crawford and Curry are also captains so that would make Curry, Crawford, and Marbury the leaders of this team. Crawford has played more games than any other player in the NBA without ever playing a playoff game.
Crawford has 3 major weaknesses that prevented the Bulls and is preventing the Knicks from making the playoffs:
- Turnover prone
- Not a good shooter, check his stats they dont lie
- No Defense, Crawford has NEVER played good defense
He should be playing only 15 to 20 minutes a game. At least Marbury can lead a team to the playoffs. If he had the right players around him, who knows how far he can lead a team. Ill admit, Marbury cant pass like Kidd or Nash but hes a better scorer then both of them and he can defend as good as any other point guard. How many point guards can defend shooting guards? We saw this all the time last year, Marbury had to guard alot of players bigger then him and he did a good job. Just ask Jesus Shuttlesworth. There is no one Crawford can defend, not even Dan dickau.