OFFICIAL NEW YORK KNICKS OFFSEASON THREAD: TRAINING CAMP

[flatbushfiyah23]

Shuges I agree with your point about homers and Marv no longer Broadcasting Knicks games is a disgrace. However, I don't think Gus is a homer (not sayingthat you said he was) but I think what many fans of team Knicks like about him is is passion. What I dislike about Breen who I think is an excellent announceris just his inability to ever criticize a ref or the NBA.

allen3xis I covered it in college when I covered Pitt. The last few years I have just went as a fan...I will be there again as a fan but I probably will coverwhoever St. Johns plays (and loses to) for the Post. Are you going?

 

[shuges]

Originally Posted by THE GR8

And if Dolan tries o pull !++% and get rid of Clyde i will do NY a favor and kill him

If that piece of %!%$ gets rid of Clyde, NYC MUST riot.

Pat and Marv were bad enough. But Clyde???

I'd lead the charge, word up.

 

[nyk orange and blue]

"no play for Mr. Gray"

 

[briannnnn]

"OMNIPOTENCE"

Gus Johnson is cool, too. I think he once referred to Ray Allen as "the baby-faced assassin"

 

[nyk orange and blue]

Originally Posted by briannnnn

"OMNIPOTENCE"

Gus Johnson is cool, too. I think he once referred to Ray Allen as "the baby-faced assassin"

 

[true 3 blue]

son said he'd kill Dolan himself....lmao

 

[the gr8]

Iight yo i just wanted to hit yalls up with one of those "What If" questions that i cant get out of my mind...

Iight so right now im reading that "Just Ballin" bookby Mike Wise and Frank Isola about the 99 Knicks. Ive wanted to read it for a while and i justfinally got it, and in case your wondering and have not read it its sick so far and really interesting. Like i hate reading and never read really, but i cantstoop reading this book yo.

But any way one of the topics that was brought up was the trade deadline of that season. The Knicks were struggling and looking for a pg to help take that teamover the hump because neither Ward or Childs were franchise pgs (and ont get me wrong both those players have a place in my heart for the work they put in forthis team back in the day). But the big topic of the deadline was Stephon Marbury on the block out of Minnesota. Van Gundy wanted him and the Knicks mediawanted him because he was an all-star pg and Brooklyn's boy. He openly said kind of Ron Artest-like that he would do everything in his power to be tradedto the Knicks. But for much of the reason Grunfeld got fired mid season, he could not lure him in and the Nets got to him.

I mean we all remmber how well tthe Knicks turned out in 99, bu i think that Marbury trade would have changed the future of this team immensely. First off forthe 99 season, i think that young feisty Stephon would have been the perfect point guard. He was a phenomminal scorer and passer and could run that up tempogame the Knicks were playing, and with him playin his heart out night in and out and becoming one of the best pgs in the east, i think that team would havebeen even better with him running the point if we could have gotten him in a packaged deal for like Ward and Childs and maybe some add-one to make the tradework under the salary. But with that young Stephon who i used to love so much in Minnesota, along with Houston/Spree combo at the gueard spots. i think Marburywould be great for both of them because his syle would open up the court immensely for Houston's sweet jumper. and if you remember during thheir shortstint together in NY back in 2004 (our last time in the playoffs) they had great chemisttry together and Marbury helped the old H20 alsot, and they still arebois today. and him and Spree were both feisty players and very agressive and theu would work well together also, add that guard play with LJ's inside outgame, Kurt and Camby helping out down low, playing D and blocking shots, and Ewing as the force in the middle offensively and defensively, i think that teamwould have been even better.

And than also if you look at where we are now. At the bottom of the east with no diection, and marbury as a psycho guy who isnt 1/8 of the player he used tobe, i think we could have been alot different as well. I think a big reason that we broke up after that Ewing trade and into the millenium was

A) we got Scott Layden
B) We had no one to build around

If Grunfeld would have gotten that deal for Starbury through we would avoid both. it would have saved Grunfeld his job and we would have that franchise playerto keep the core around post Ewing. First of all if we could have won the chip that year , we would have never traded Pat and all the guys would have stuckaround. but even if we lost to the Spurs again, Grunfld would have been wise enough to Let Pat retire with the Knicks and let his contract come off the books.But than even excluding that trade, Houston and LJ were aging and were not players to build around, Camby was not durable enough or good enough offensively,Spree lacked leadership qualities, and Kurt was just a very solid big man. But if we would have had Marbury and a smarter GM, we would have had that franchiseplayer to buld around in that young Marbury, we could have kept Houston but for less $, and we would have had Spree stick around because the team would keep onwinning and trading him for Van Horn would be foolish, throw in Kurt and Grunfeld was a huge Camby supporter and if we were winning, he would stay as well.Ithink that is a core that would keep in tact for a number of years, and when guys would get older we would get some younger players to fill in the spots andno doubt be in a far better situation tha before. The team would be better, and Martbury's career would be looked upon much differently.

I dont buy that Marbury was jt a winner. I just think h needed to fit in somewhere, and that group of Knixks would be perfect for that young Stephon, he wouldbe allowed to score but still distibute the ball in the cty of which hes from and a coach who would have his back. I kow it didnt pan out that way, but i feelthat trade could have changed our whole team's future andStephon's whole career. I know im dreaming, but thats how i feel. What do you guys think onthat matter?

 

[woodside718]

Originally Posted by NYK orange and blue

"no play for Mr. Gray"

 

[flatbushfiyah23]

Originally Posted by THE GR8

Iight yo i just wanted to hit yalls up with one of those "What If" questions that i cant get out of my mind...

Iight so right now im reading that "Just Ballin" bookby Mike Wise and Frank Isola about the 99 Knicks. Ive wanted to read it for a while and i just finally got it, and in case your wondering and have not read it its sick so far and really interesting. Like i hate reading and never read really, but i cant stoop reading this book yo.

But any way one of the topics that was brought up was the trade deadline of that season. The Knicks were struggling and looking for a pg to help take that team over the hump because neither Ward or Childs were franchise pgs (and ont get me wrong both those players have a place in my heart for the work they put in for this team back in the day). But the big topic of the deadline was Stephon Marbury on the block out of Minnesota. Van Gundy wanted him and the Knicks media wanted him because he was an all-star pg and Brooklyn's boy. He openly said kind of Ron Artest-like that he would do everything in his power to be traded to the Knicks. But for much of the reason Grunfeld got fired mid season, he could not lure him in and the Nets got to him.

I mean we all remmber how well tthe Knicks turned out in 99, bu i think that Marbury trade would have changed the future of this team immensely. First off for the 99 season, i think that young feisty Stephon would have been the perfect point guard. He was a phenomminal scorer and passer and could run that up tempo game the Knicks were playing, and with him playin his heart out night in and out and becoming one of the best pgs in the east, i think that team would have been even better with him running the point if we could have gotten him in a packaged deal for like Ward and Childs and maybe some add-one to make the trade work under the salary. But with that young Stephon who i used to love so much in Minnesota, along with Houston/Spree combo at the gueard spots. i think Marbury would be great for both of them because his syle would open up the court immensely for Houston's sweet jumper. and if you remember during thheir short stint together in NY back in 2004 (our last time in the playoffs) they had great chemisttry together and Marbury helped the old H20 alsot, and they still are bois today. and him and Spree were both feisty players and very agressive and theu would work well together also, add that guard play with LJ's inside out game, Kurt and Camby helping out down low, playing D and blocking shots, and Ewing as the force in the middle offensively and defensively, i think that team would have been even better.

And than also if you look at where we are now. At the bottom of the east with no diection, and marbury as a psycho guy who isnt 1/8 of the player he used to be, i think we could have been alot different as well. I think a big reason that we broke up after that Ewing trade and into the millenium was

A) we got Scott Layden
B) We had no one to build around

If Grunfeld would have gotten that deal for Starbury through we would avoid both. it would have saved Grunfeld his job and we would have that franchise player to keep the core around post Ewing. First of all if we could have won the chip that year , we would have never traded Pat and all the guys would have stuck around. but even if we lost to the Spurs again, Grunfld would have been wise enough to Let Pat retire with the Knicks and let his contract come off the books. But than even excluding that trade, Houston and LJ were aging and were not players to build around, Camby was not durable enough or good enough offensively, Spree lacked leadership qualities, and Kurt was just a very solid big man. But if we would have had Marbury and a smarter GM, we would have had that franchise player to buld around in that young Marbury, we could have kept Houston but for less $, and we would have had Spree stick around because the team would keep on winning and trading him for Van Horn would be foolish, throw in Kurt and Grunfeld was a huge Camby supporter and if we were winning, he would stay as well. Ithink that is a core that would keep in tact for a number of years, and when guys would get older we would get some younger players to fill in the spots and no doubt be in a far better situation tha before. The team would be better, and Martbury's career would be looked upon much differently.

I dont buy that Marbury was jt a winner. I just think h needed to fit in somewhere, and that group of Knixks would be perfect for that young Stephon, he would be allowed to score but still distibute the ball in the cty of which hes from and a coach who would have his back. I kow it didnt pan out that way, but i feel that trade could have changed our whole team's future andStephon's whole career. I know im dreaming, but thats how i feel. What do you guys think on that matter?

GR8 I agree with you (as far as Marbury having more of an impact on the franchise if he came earlier) but you also have to consider we really didn'thave pieces to trade for Steph at the time and it probably would have meant giving up Allan Houston.
I think two deals people forget about that crippledthis franchise are:
1)Trading Ewing and not letting his contract expire
2)Trading Marcus Camby for McDyess....how bad was that trade?! One of the all-time worst Knick trades; if not THE WORST.

I talked to Brandon Tierney and a few other beat writers at the Cavs game and many people seem to think the Knicks will address the backcourt in this yearsdraft. Like myself BT was high on Rose but he also is very high on Eric Gordon. However, I question Gordon's ability to run the show. Right now IMO theKnicks better get Rose...I want him in a Knick uniform next year. We better keep losing or trade up or do what we have to do. Pay to get the lottery fixedetc. LOL.

 

[nyk orange and blue]

what if we somehow end up with the number 1 pick? Beasly over Rose then?

 

[the gr8]

Originally Posted by FlatbushFiyah23

Originally Posted by THE GR8

Iight yo i just wanted to hit yalls up with one of those "What If" questions that i cant get out of my mind...

Iight so right now im reading that "Just Ballin" bookby Mike Wise and Frank Isola about the 99 Knicks. Ive wanted to read it for a while and i just finally got it, and in case your wondering and have not read it its sick so far and really interesting. Like i hate reading and never read really, but i cant stoop reading this book yo.

But any way one of the topics that was brought up was the trade deadline of that season. The Knicks were struggling and looking for a pg to help take that team over the hump because neither Ward or Childs were franchise pgs (and ont get me wrong both those players have a place in my heart for the work they put in for this team back in the day). But the big topic of the deadline was Stephon Marbury on the block out of Minnesota. Van Gundy wanted him and the Knicks media wanted him because he was an all-star pg and Brooklyn's boy. He openly said kind of Ron Artest-like that he would do everything in his power to be traded to the Knicks. But for much of the reason Grunfeld got fired mid season, he could not lure him in and the Nets got to him.

I mean we all remmber how well tthe Knicks turned out in 99, bu i think that Marbury trade would have changed the future of this team immensely. First off for the 99 season, i think that young feisty Stephon would have been the perfect point guard. He was a phenomminal scorer and passer and could run that up tempo game the Knicks were playing, and with him playin his heart out night in and out and becoming one of the best pgs in the east, i think that team would have been even better with him running the point if we could have gotten him in a packaged deal for like Ward and Childs and maybe some add-one to make the trade work under the salary. But with that young Stephon who i used to love so much in Minnesota, along with Houston/Spree combo at the gueard spots. i think Marbury would be great for both of them because his syle would open up the court immensely for Houston's sweet jumper. and if you remember during thheir short stint together in NY back in 2004 (our last time in the playoffs) they had great chemisttry together and Marbury helped the old H20 alsot, and they still are bois today. and him and Spree were both feisty players and very agressive and theu would work well together also, add that guard play with LJ's inside out game, Kurt and Camby helping out down low, playing D and blocking shots, and Ewing as the force in the middle offensively and defensively, i think that team would have been even better.

And than also if you look at where we are now. At the bottom of the east with no diection, and marbury as a psycho guy who isnt 1/8 of the player he used to be, i think we could have been alot different as well. I think a big reason that we broke up after that Ewing trade and into the millenium was

A) we got Scott Layden
B) We had no one to build around

If Grunfeld would have gotten that deal for Starbury through we would avoid both. it would have saved Grunfeld his job and we would have that franchise player to keep the core around post Ewing. First of all if we could have won the chip that year , we would have never traded Pat and all the guys would have stuck around. but even if we lost to the Spurs again, Grunfld would have been wise enough to Let Pat retire with the Knicks and let his contract come off the books. But than even excluding that trade, Houston and LJ were aging and were not players to build around, Camby was not durable enough or good enough offensively, Spree lacked leadership qualities, and Kurt was just a very solid big man. But if we would have had Marbury and a smarter GM, we would have had that franchise player to buld around in that young Marbury, we could have kept Houston but for less $, and we would have had Spree stick around because the team would keep on winning and trading him for Van Horn would be foolish, throw in Kurt and Grunfeld was a huge Camby supporter and if we were winning, he would stay as well. Ithink that is a core that would keep in tact for a number of years, and when guys would get older we would get some younger players to fill in the spots and no doubt be in a far better situation tha before. The team would be better, and Martbury's career would be looked upon much differently.

I dont buy that Marbury was jt a winner. I just think h needed to fit in somewhere, and that group of Knixks would be perfect for that young Stephon, he would be allowed to score but still distibute the ball in the cty of which hes from and a coach who would have his back. I kow it didnt pan out that way, but i feel that trade could have changed our whole team's future andStephon's whole career. I know im dreaming, but thats how i feel. What do you guys think on that matter?

GR8 I agree with you (as far as Marbury having more of an impact on the franchise if he came earlier) but you also have to consider we really didn't have pieces to trade for Steph at the time and it probably would have meant giving up Allan Houston.
I think two deals people forget about that crippled this franchise are:
1)Trading Ewing and not letting his contract expire
2)Trading Marcus Camby for McDyess....how bad was that trade?! One of the all-time worst Knick trades; if not THE WORST.

I talked to Brandon Tierney and a few other beat writers at the Cavs game and many people seem to think the Knicks will address the backcourt in this years draft. Like myself BT was high on Rose but he also is very high on Eric Gordon. However, I question Gordon's ability to run the show. Right now IMO the Knicks better get Rose...I want him in a Knick uniform next year. We better keep losing or trade up or do what we have to do. Pay to get the lottery fixed etc. LOL.

Thats some good points and i agree, but getting Steph in 99 could have changed alot.

Anyway i acknowleged that those 2 trades brought us back years and i mentioned that in what i just said, but i also mentioned that part of the reasonGrunfeld was canned was cause he didnt do ***% in the deadline and than we ended up with Scott bum Layden. Grunfeld wouldn not do trades that stupid IMO.

And if those guys like Rose and gordon thats good cause im like that also. While i think Rose is the "need" pick in that situation, Gordon is myfavorit out of all them and if we come away with like a 3-5 pick, i would love to get Gordon.

And ma homie Nate

dude is a Killa. Pure Fiyah. Give my man the rock.


And i agree i also love Wilson Chandler, young homie can be nice.

EDIT: and Nate was crazy last night on Steve Blake some of his moves

i cant remember the last time ive seen someone get abused likethat

But no doubt Nate was on fire and coming through big tome, he was playing smart, his shot was on, and nobody can keep up with him cause of his speed whichis crazy, power, and hops. when hes in the open court hes a %@%##+% rocket. Did anybody else see him through up the Cris sign after he broke Blake and went infor the floater

 

[mez 0ne]

If the knicks somehow land the #1, there is no question you take a man like Beasly.

 

[allen3xis]

We'd almost have to,

but I still think Rose is the better fit here.

I actually might want the #2 pick more.

 

[the gr8]

^^I do also, its an easier pick, you get whoever #1 doesnt take, either its the best player in college bball or its the guy who fits the system better (whichis more likely)

its a win-win, let Minnesota or some team out west (preferebly not the heat) get #1

 

[shuges]

Originally Posted by Mez 0ne

If the knicks somehow land the #1, there is no question you take a man like Beasly.

In that scenario, I'd prefer they trade down to 3 or even 4. They'd still get a quality player (whether it be Rose, Gordon, Mayo [if he changeshis mind], Bayless, etc) PLUS whatever else the team they trade with is offering (another draft pick? expiring contract?).

The franchise is a complete mess right now. Snatching Beasley would mean that he'd have to be the unquestioned centerpiece in NY. And with the way thecurrent roster is set up, you'd have to move a LOT of people to ensure his development. I just don't see that (moving so many people) being an easytask.

 

[the gr8]

^^exactly a forward is not wat we need right now

if we get 1 i would trade 1 and try and get rose or gordon or even bayless, and get some otha picks in there

i know beasley is the best but i would rather get 2 and draft rose and than keep lee at PF, Crawford at the 2, Nate as a back up point, trade for Dalembert orsomeone (not curry!!!!) to play center, and than finally make the move we waited way to long to do and sign Ron Artest to the MLE and get sme D, or even bettergo after Lebron in a few years one Rose is a developed star pg. No way Lebron can turn down a NY team with a franchise pg if we under cap

 

[bullsrepeat3peat]

ya the # 2 pick would be alot better suited for the Knicks....

but unless they have a plan to clear some major cap room at once (which is damn near impossible at this point) for LeBron to go to the Knicks, they should takeBeasley if they do get the #1 pick....

 

[true 3 blue]

whats good with the draft though? i remember a while back some people were talkin about attending...

 

[krazecraze]

[h1]Curry Has Tear in Knee; Will Try to Play[/h1]
By HOWARD BECK

Eddy Curry will try to play again this season, despite a cartilage tear in his right knee that will probably require surgery at some point.

A magnetic resonance imaging test taken Sunday showed a small vertical cartilage tear, the Knicks announced. The tear is unlikely to heal on its own. However, team doctors say Curry can continueto play without making the tear worse.

Curry has told team officials that he wants to keep playing and postpone the operation until after the season. The Knicks (18-45) have 19 games left andnothing to play for, but Curry is trying to salvage his own disappointing season. He played well in three games last week before injuring the knee inFriday's loss to the Detroit Pistons.

The knee swelled overnight, and Curry sat out Saturday's loss to the Portland Trail Blazers. He is still bothered by the swelling and will not play in Monday'sgame in Dallas. If the swelling subsides in the next two days, Curry could join the team for Wednesday's game in Miami.

Zach Randolph, who has missed six straight games because of a foot injury, was expected to join the team in Dallas on Sunday night and play in Monday'sgame against the Mavericks. Jamal Crawford, who missed Saturday's game because of a bruised hand, isconsidered questionable.

 

[nyk orange and blue]

teams have made the mistake of drafting needs over better overall talent

look what happened in '99 when we thought Frederic Weiss was a better fit than Ron Artest

remember that talk that we needed a center so badly, that we took that bum in the draft

Sam Bowie over Jordan for portland

 

[diceloveme]

I'd definitely rather see a pg leader on our team then another scorer.

 

[briannnnn]

Originally Posted by NYK orange and blue

teams have made the mistake of drafting needs over better overall talent

look what happened in '99 when we thought Frederic Weiss was a better fit than Ron Artest

remember that talk that we needed a center so badly, that we took that bum in the draft

Sam Bowie over Jordan for portland

The "French Phantom"

 

[allen3xis]

I think Derrick Rose's potential is greater than Beasley..

and for a team, almost any team...I'd rather him be the franchise then Beasley.

That's just me tho

 

[the gr8]

Originally Posted by Krazecraze

[h1]Curry Has Tear in Knee; Will Try to Play[/h1]
By HOWARD BECK

Eddy Curry will try to play again this season, despite a cartilage tear in his right knee that will probably require surgery at some point.

A magnetic resonance imaging test taken Sunday showed a small vertical cartilage tear, the Knicks announced. The tear is unlikely to heal on its own. However, team doctors say Curry can continue to play without making the tear worse.

Curry has told team officials that he wants to keep playing and postpone the operation until after the season. The Knicks (18-45) have 19 games left and nothing to play for, but Curry is trying to salvage his own disappointing season. He played well in three games last week before injuring the knee in Friday's loss to the Detroit Pistons.

The knee swelled overnight, and Curry sat out Saturday's loss to the Portland Trail Blazers. He is still bothered by the swelling and will not play in Monday's game in Dallas. If the swelling subsides in the next two days, Curry could join the team for Wednesday's game in Miami.

Zach Randolph, who has missed six straight games because of a foot injury, was expected to join the team in Dallas on Sunday night and play in Monday's game against the Mavericks. Jamal Crawford, who missed Saturday's game because of a bruised hand, is considered questionable.

Just give it up bum

how the %+*! does this guy get injured when all he does is stand in the paint and get balls to him occasionally so he can jack up a shot, and than walk backto the other side and not even pay attention never the less try and actually play defense. Especially when hes only been doing it for 10-15 mins a nightreccnetly. SOFT

A note from Knicks fans to soft bum #34... just

oh and btw a note from last nights game, we could have had Brandon Roy if we didnt trade all of our picks for that waste of space. Nate and Roy=

and about the Rose/Beasley argument, its not just the need pick really. Yes Beasley is the better talent, but Rose is a point guard leader, thats not thesame as saying "we need a center" so we will take a center over a sick swing man like MJ or Artest. I cant really explain how it is different, itsjust that Rose isnt nnecessarily worse than Beasley he is phenominal at a different game, and he has the skills/tools/attitude/body to become the player i knowhe will be. i can guarenntee that Rose will be an all-star point guuard and one of the best in the league for years.

 

[allen3xis]

Rose develops a better jumper (its better than people say now, anyway)..

he can be an all time great, I truly believe that.

When I look at Beasley, I see an All Star, who is always gona get his points and boards...but idk, I feel like Rose can impact the game in so many ways.


But in the end, can't go wrong either way, and I'd be ecstatic with either