Originally Posted by metrocard
Roco, it wasn't a fact Nazr and Sweetney was going to be our future 4. Especially with those guys being injury prone, that would of been replaced in the near future.
My point is that we had an entirely different team that we had 3 years ago. Back then, we were trying to acquire more talent. Now we're talking about the realistic possibility of playoffs with a relatively young team.

Originally Posted by metrocard
You have to recognize this isn't the best process for the team by ignoring the weaknesses each season, understand? If you can't put yourself together and understand that, then you're hopeless.
Now you're going to make me sound like a radical Isiah-apologist. But here goes:

I had a problem with the Jerome James move. But that was a gamble, and it didn't pan out. Simple as that. Trading for Francis? Larry Brown convinced Isiah that Francis was what the Knicks needed, and I hated to see Trevor Ariza go.

But let's start from the top.

After Marbury:

TT and Nazr - We traded a starter and a backup for two starters. Mutombo was effective, but we didn't really know how much longer he'd last. This also allowed us to keep KT at the 4 when Mutombo would leave.

Jamal Crawford- When we traded for him, Isiah was trying to create a dynamic three guard rotation. Good idea, but then Allan Houston became damaged goods, and Crawford ended up playing way more than expected.

What weakness were we addressing? If you don't remember, we had just made the playoffs and were splitting time between Shandon Anderson and Penny Hardaway in a series which we got swept. Shandon worked hard, but he just wasn't the capable scorer that we needed. Jamal Crawford, a scoring combo guard fresh off of a 17 ppg season, was available and Isiah took advantage of that opportunity.

Malik Rose- We got rid of Nazr, and I feared we were back at the "no true center" days. But Isiah inquired for two first rounders in the deal, which ultimately became David Lee and Mardy Collins.

Weaknesses? We acquired a locker room presence from a winning team. Even today, Malik's still for whatever is good for the team.

Quentin Richardson and a draft pick - Kurt Thomas was already getting old, and now we were getting a 25 year old G/F and a draft pick.

Weaknesses? We acquired the league leader in 3 pt field goals made and got younger by adding a draft pick.

Eddy Curry - People can complain about the lottery picks all they want to. Mike Sweetney isn't doing so great in Chicago and Tim Thomas isn't doing anything incredible in Clipperland. Joakim Noah and Tyrus Thomas or Eddy Curry, Renaldo Balkman, and Wilson Chandler? I'll take the latter.

Weaknesses? Who was the last real center that we could invest our future in? It wasn't Mutombo.

We had three draft picks in 2005 and two more in 2006. We were getting younger.

Jared Jeffries - Don't bag on him yet. It's taken Curry and Q-Rich one season each to really adjust, and I think we owe Jared the same opportunity.

Weaknesses? Perimeter defense was an issue, and we acquired a 6'11 player who started on a playoff team surrounded by three starters who were bona fide scorers. Jeffries had a defensive role. Can you understand Isiah's position when he went after Jeffries?

Zach Randolph - I liked Francis and Frye, but when you have the ability to upgrade and solidify the starting 4 position, then I can't see why you don't take advantage of it.

Weaknesses? Now here i'm supposed to tell you why he's perfect for us right? Wrong. He's a guy with good range on his jumper, a double-double machine last season, creative offensive post player who got to the line and shot 80% from the line. Can he help? We'll see.

Should I mention the fact that Isiah refused to part with David Lee (prior to the breakout season) when we were offered Theo Ratliff from the Blazers? Or would you have rather addressed a weakness that quickly and mortgaged a piece of the future?

Originally Posted by metrocard
One on one is an irrelevant point. You held a pointless argument that turned out to be wrong and my argument turned out to be right, again. My fortune has been sweet, you have to admit. Marbury is one of my favorite players in the league, he has matured as an overall PG, but was never at a MVP status, all star yes. But never at a MVP status. You have to discredit Nash's MVP because thats how weak your argument is. Right now, Marbury and Nash no comparison really. Nash is the first option you want at PG for a winning formula. Curry at center isn't a player you want for winning, more so for one on one situations that can either hurt or help the team.
What point? One-on-one wasn't the point. It looks like you interpreted it as me saying, "Nash said Marbury could beat him one-on-one, and therefore Marbury is better than Nash." I wasn't saying that. Look, Kevin Garnett has won the MVP before right? But what happened last season? Was Garnett in the same situation last season as he was during his MVP year? Nash has found himself in the best situation with players who can run with him and fit his style of play. I'm not discrediting his MVP status.

You mentioned Phoenix as being a great team, but what have you heard about their defense?

Originally Posted by metrocard
I don't see it working, and you haven't provided any facts that it will, so why should I agree with you when you're not bringing up any points? No need really to get frustrated about it, I defended my side of the argument of this topic, I'm still waiting for a nice explanation on how Randolph is going to answer our interior defense problems, ball movement and turnovers. That has yet been explained by any Isiahsexual here, including you my friend. And the answer isn't "Randolph dominated Tim Duncan and Amare Stoudimire." Lets be more logical here.
Bring in a guy like Dwyane Wade, and I bet you'd be concerned about how this addresses our turnover problem. I think we're going to be a team prided on team defense. Ball movement? Well I told you about how we had nearly 8 guys in double figure scoring, so I'm confident that our rotational guys will get their share. Turnovers? What's the answer? Play smart. Neither you or I could say, we just traded for "some guy", and then say that we'll have less turnovers next season. Your concerns are legitimate, but we just don't see eye to eye on this.

Originally Posted by metrocard
Roco, everyone in the Jaber Rouzbahani thread agreed with me. No one was really backing your random comments. You will disagree on anything. This was when Knicks were desperate for a center. I was the only person in the forum who was a valuable source for international prospects. Jaber Rouzbahani isn't even 25 yet, so who knows where he'll end up. Peter John Ramos is hopeless. Good player in the NBDL though. But I'm not going to say much here since I understand your knowledge on international or foreign leagues is very limited. Back to the NBA and our Knicks.
How modest of you. You're right, I don't follow international or foreign leagues. But you tell me, are they doing anything significant in the NBA? Who's the next Peter John Ramos? And why make the excuse that "Jaber Rouzbahani isn't even 25 yet"? Eddy Curry wasn't even 25 last season, and there was talk by people non-affiliated with the Knicks that he was an all-star caliber player. My point is that there were many things that you and I zealously argued, and you'll likely find holes in either argument sooner or later. So if you're going to throw out my response toward you trying to find some argument I made three years ago, then allow me to do the same.

Originally Posted by metrocard
You want to explain WHY Randolph is such a "winning" player? Why can't you be a man and just agree with the facts. Randolph can only be the primary option of a low scoring offense that is a lottery team. Thats a fact. Thats been his history in the NBA as a starter. You can't compare Allen and Kevin Garnett because both Ray Allen (against the 76ers) and Kevin Garnett were in the conference finals and both teams came very close to making the NBA Finals.
A ha! So now it's about how Garnett and Allen at their best can help the Celtics, but you don't grant Randolph the same chance to show how he can help us at his best.

According to your logic, if the player hasn't got it done by age 25, then screw them? Right? No, I don't think that that was what you were trying to say, so don't try to miscontrue what I was saying. Allen made the conference finals with the Bucks. What happened to him after that? Allen has had one winning season in Seattle since he left Milwaukee. What about Garnett? One Western conference finals appearance, seven first round exits.

Does this prevent me from saying that Garnett or Allen wouldn't be able to help the Knicks? No, because I'm not going to think like you on this one.

Originally Posted by metrocard
So whats your argument here? KG and Allen gives their teams a chance to compete, Randolph has never in his career. Now they're both on the same team, how sick is that, with another elite all star Paul Pierce. That fact is they have a history of being highly competitive players, and even better when they're in the playoffs. You can't say that about Randolph. To disagree, you would have to discredit Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen and desperately try to raise Randolph's status higher than those two. I wouldn't be surprise you've said sillier things in the past. Theres a point where homerism needs to stop. I constantly defend my Knicks from foolish Raptors and Bulls fans, but I hate to see Isiahsexuals hype up the team so ignorantly and homerishly...its like where do you guys get your facts from? Its either what ifs or a prediction in the future. Really cliche and boring.
My point is that Randolph can find a way to use his strengths to help our team. What did Jason Williams, Antoine Walker, and James Posey have to show for before they came to the Heat? What credentials or experience past the conference finals did any of these guys have to show for themselves? They hadn't won the title before. But when they came on board in Miami, that's what they helped Shaq and Wade do. Let's look at the phrase "how sick would it be". Everyone was talking about "how sick" the Fab Four of the Lakers would be, and though they won 56 games, they amounted to one win in the NBA finals. Payton and Malone had their rounds against Jordan, Bryant and Shaq had three rings. One finals win. I'm not taking anything away from the power that the Celtics can unleash, but let's just sit back and see how things develop. I'm not going to compare Randolph and Garnett, because I think Garnett is superior. Do I have to discredit Garnett and Allen and raise Randolph's status to disagree? No. I'll just say how the acquisition of Randolph can help.

What have I done to hype up this team? I, too, know that we have weaknesses, and I want a title, but is it necessary for me to bash people when they talk about hope? I wonder what the Raptors and Bulls fans tell you and how you respond to it.

Originally Posted by metrocard
Randolph > Frye, no ****. It still doesn't answer our team needs, which you continue fail to explain why that isn't a problem. You don't have a problem with Knicks coming into the season with weak interior defense and still turnover prone? I'll wait with you to see if they improve on that, but till now its not proven...so I can't be happy with Isiah until he addresses our need.
So wait with me. Let's see how it works. An upgrade at the four position (which you just admitted) doesn't help us somewhat?

Originally Posted by metrocard
You're right, Randolph does have Marbury, Curry, Richardson and Crawford. But who's going to pass the ball? These guys are isolation players, I can only see Marbury who's mature enough to give up his one on one game and sacrafice for the other guys. I like how Marbury moves the ball.
Nearly 8 guys, double figure scoring. I don't think touches were an issue brought up by any player.

Originally Posted by metrocard
We also had more downfalls than opportunities emerge for us. We also had many missed opportunites. Are you going to tell me guys like Jared Jefferies and Jerome James are the best available guys for the MLE in free agency? Those were both terrible signings by Iisah and it has shown the past season.
I don't like how the Jerome James situation panned out, but I am willing to give Jeffries a chance just like Eddy and Q.

Originally Posted by metrocard
Isiah made a mistake signing Larry Brown and expect him to a coach a team that doesn't fit his method of play.
So you're telling me that you wouldn't have advocated the signing of Larry Brown when we did? Obviously it turned out to be a mistake, but there wasn't anyone who thought the Knicks would turn out to be as bad as they were. More than 40 different starting lineups, not establishing a rotation, and starting a player in his hometown was not the method of play that the Knicks needed. I agree.

Originally Posted by metrocard
The team back then won the same amount of games or more than the team we have now. The team back then had expiring contracts and a lot of draft picks. So there was SOMETHING to work with, please don't be foolish enough to realize that. Isiah went to a maze or a puzzle to get where he is now, and wasted a lot of time and money for little success. Why do you name Curry, Nate and Jefferies like they're all stars? I'll take Allan Houston 3 years ago over all those players. At least Houston was a border-line all star every season with leadership and a matured game.
Where have I referred to Nate and Jeffries like all-stars? Why will you single out Randolph on defense when you know that Allan Houston wasn't a good defender either? I love Allan Houston to death, but we were going nowhere with him at the helm. He had help with LJ, Spree, Ewing, Childs, and Oakley, not Weatherspoon, Harrington, Travis Knight, and Howard Eisley.

Originally Posted by metrocard
You're saying if too many times, which makes me doubt you're thinking realstically instead more imaginary. I don't know where your going with this imagination of yours that isn't real. We didn't have Eddy Curry 3 years ago, why does it matter? What matters is we had expiring contracts and alot of draft picks. That would of allowed us to move for guys, get under the cap and sign top free agents. You know NYC is a hot market for free agents. Isiah failed to realize that and ignore the cap. We've blown many opportunities to excel and grow on this Eddy Curry development. I'm not going to waste my time on that, send feedback when you're ready to speak more realistically.
When I use "if", I feel that you take my example way out of context. Having Eddy Curry three years ago means that we've established him for our piece of the future. When you say three years, it's as though you look at it without recognizing any change. When I say three years, I'm talking about establishing a foundation and then moving forward. Under Isiah, we haven't been able to establish a foundation as easily as we'd like, but we're starting to see the pieces that can fit. Metro, when before this summer would we have been able to get under the cap even if we had kept our expirings? I'm sorry that we can't agree on what being realistic means.

Originally Posted by metrocard
3 years to barely be considered an 8th seed team in the Eastern Conference? What about next year, your new expectation level is gonna be 7th seed? I could see you saying something silly like "Give Isiah 7 more years, by 2014 we'll be a one seed". You would probably find some far fetched argument for that too.
Put away the misunderstandings my friend, there's no trouble here. Think hard and you'll know honestly if I am the way you are describing me.

Originally Posted by metrocard
Isiah saw the opportunities and didn't handle them carefully. Isiah traded for what he felt he needed on the roster, not what the Knicks needed, which became his downfall.
Say what you will, but I'll wait and see what happens. Listen, don't think that I am always for whatever Isiah does, or that I'm a so-called "isiahsexual". We both want what's best for the Knicks, but we just have different ways of looking at things. Unlike you, I won't self-proclaim that I'm right and you're wrong. Although I don't agree with you, I am willing to admit that I at least understand why you are thinking the way that you are.