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?
