^That KA, is an understatement. TT gives scrubs career nights. He might let Travis Knight break Wilt's scoring record in a wheel chair. Who knows?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting norespect:</div><div class="quote_post"> I do believe that the knicks also got Nazr Mohammed. Mohammed is above avg. for a big man, thats a big deal, especially in the East. </div> Whatever you say. But haven't we all gone over the idea that Mohhamed would have been easy to acquire without having to do this KVH/TT swap? Yes we have, and it's obvious Atlanta would've taken something directly from us...at the time he was a 3rd string over-paid center. What you see today is a product of good coaching from Mark Aguirre. Wake up.
What would you of traded for him then? He was putting up decent numbers in limited minutes so they're not going to give him up for nothing. Any 7 footer with half way decent skills will demand some sort of reasonable compensation. You talk like this guy was never used and wasnt important to his team being a 3rd stringer, and then in the same breath talk about how Doleac was good, and important to the team, and he was valueable has a backup. But Doleac was getting even less minutes than Nazr, putting up worse numbers, and obviously had next to no potential. So give me a trade idea. And then when you're done with that, explain how you still could of the trades the Knicks made after that without that piece (ex. Crawford) It was a risky venture to do, but it could of paid big divedends. You talk like the Knicks were the team to beat or something with KVH...as if he could of taken the team to contention. Well I've gotta say you should be tired of being mediocre. The KVH trade could of worked out great since TT has more natural talents than KVH if someone could just get through to him, and Nazr had way more potential than Doleac. It could of made the Knicks a significantly better team. It didnt, it made them about equal. i dont think the Knicks are any worse now, probably even a bit better off.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting 02civic:</div><div class="quote_post">What would you of traded for him then? He was putting up decent numbers in limited minutes so they're not going to give him up for nothing. Any 7 footer with half way decent skills will demand some sort of reasonable compensation. You talk like this guy was never used and wasnt important to his team being a 3rd stringer, and then in the same breath talk about how Doleac was good, and important to the team, and he was valueable has a backup. But Doleac was getting even less minutes than Nazr, putting up worse numbers, and obviously had next to no potential. So give me a trade idea. And then when you're done with that, explain how you still could of the trades the Knicks made after that without that piece (ex. Crawford)</div> I don't know what we could have gotten him for. We got Crawford with Frank, Mutombo, Harrington, and Trybanski. Those players didn't necessarily have to go in getting Crawford. Even if it did, it could have been a 3 team trade in which Frank Williams, went to Atlanta. He was barely used. Mostly Ratliff would log in significant time. I thought we got through that already. Numbers, numbers, number. There is much more to basketball than numbers!! Does it show on the stat sheet how many charges Doleac drew? Does it show how much space he created for Marbury to get an easy layup because of his jumper. The intangibles are important. That's why when people watch the actual games they can tell how valuable someone is. Brad Miller is more efficient than Paul Pierce, and Kidd and a ton of other players but does that mean he is better than them? The numbers sure say so. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">It was a risky venture to do, but it could of paid big divedends. You talk like the Knicks were the team to beat or something with KVH...as if he could of taken the team to contention. Well I've gotta say you should be tired of being mediocre. The KVH trade could of worked out great since TT has more natural talents than KVH if someone could just get through to him, and Nazr had way more potential than Doleac. It could of made the Knicks a significantly better team. It didnt, it made them about equal. i dont think the Knicks are any worse now, probably even a bit better off.</div> Are you serious? From the get go it didn't look good. They were developing into a team to beat. You see, in basketball chemistry is important. The Knicks were meshing extremely well. They just finished beating some great teams and were on a good wining streak. It was just an overall great team effort. Marbury didn't even need to score as much because he had nice options to pass it to. TT is very talented! He might be one of the most talented players in the league all jokes aside. He's just lazy, and doesn't utilize his talents. There have been many "talented" players in the league who ended up becoming dissapoinments. The Bulls thought Chandler was more talented than Elton Brand. The Pistons thought Milicic was more talented than Anthony, Bosh, Wade and the rest of the guys in the draft. Not saying he wont amount to anything but, I don't think he will be as good as Carmelo, Wade, Bosh etc. The Clippers thought Olowokandi would become better than Bibby, Dirk, Vince, Jamison, and Paul Pierce. So basically many "talents" have ended up unsuccessful. Tim Thomas has overachieved for his entire career and at 6?10 has never averaged 5 rebounds in his entire career. Sure he?s talented but we have to be smart about wasted talent and potential talent. Again the same overrated word is used?potential. I would rather have a well functioning team instead of adding a player with potential. About equal? The Knicks were rolling and were well on their way to grabbing home court advantage! We went from about 10th place to 6th place in a short span of time. We were rolling!! The fact that you said it made them about equal, makes me question whether you watched any Knicks games last season.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting 02civic:</div><div class="quote_post">The KVH trade could of worked out great since TT has more natural talents than KVH if someone could just get through to him, and Nazr had way more potential than Doleac. It could of made the Knicks a significantly better team. It didnt, it made them about equal. i dont think the Knicks are any worse now, probably even a bit better off.</div>Are you kidding? Better off? Is that a joke? Did you watch one Knicks game when we had Marbury and Van Horn? Judging from that post, I'll guess you didn't and you're just saying things for the purpose of saying things.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting 02civic:</div><div class="quote_post">What would you of traded for him then? He was putting up decent numbers in limited minutes so they're not going to give him up for nothing. Any 7 footer with half way decent skills will demand some sort of reasonable compensation. You talk like this guy was never used and wasnt important to his team being a 3rd stringer, and then in the same breath talk about how Doleac was good, and important to the team, and he was valueable has a backup. But Doleac was getting even less minutes than Nazr, putting up worse numbers, and obviously had next to no potential. So give me a trade idea. And then when you're done with that, explain how you still could of the trades the Knicks made after that without that piece (ex. Crawford) It was a risky venture to do, but it could of paid big divedends. You talk like the Knicks were the team to beat or something with KVH...as if he could of taken the team to contention. Well I've gotta say you should be tired of being mediocre. The KVH trade could of worked out great since TT has more natural talents than KVH if someone could just get through to him, and Nazr had way more potential than Doleac. It could of made the Knicks a significantly better team. It didnt, it made them about equal. i dont think the Knicks are any worse now, probably even a bit better off.</div> First off the Hawks didnt want him. The only compensation they got was getting rid of his contract. They agreed to waive Doleac so that Isiah could get him back. They didnt want Nazr. We could have given up ANYTHING to get Nazr. Why do you keep saying he had decent skills when he had none? All he had was athleticism which was the sole reason the trade was made(that and to get rid of Van Horn). If anything Doleac had the edge in skill because he actually knew how to play. Running fast and jumping high are not skills. Knowing how to set picks, knowing how to draw the offensive, knowing how to shoot are skills. He had no real edge in numbers to Doleac and Doleac was a more aggressive defender. Also the case could be made the reason why his numbers were as good as they were is because his team was that bad. It's pretty easy to grab some offensive rebounds and get some put backs when your team cant make a basket to save their lives. You're still obsessing over the numbers and not thinking about the chemistry and other intangibles. Did you not read my other post? Granted it's long but it might help you understand why the trade was such a disaster. The pick and roll I believe was one of the reasons the Knicks were doing so well at the time. But we couldnt do that after the trade. I keep telling you that no matter how good the players are, just as(if not more) important is the system their in and how their used(see: Gary Payton, Triangle Offense). The way we used Doleac and Van Horn made them valuable to us. How hard do you think it is to get a player that is unknown, has no real skills and has a big contract? We probably could have signed some bum/s and tried some sort three way deal. I'm not the GM so I'm not sure how it could have been done. I cant exactly call up a GM and start talking about trade possibilites. But people who are on the inside say that there were definetely other ways to get Mohammed in the offseason. You're saying the trade was good because it could have paid off. I dont know how you could think that since anyone who knew TT knew that he was unreachable and that he had gotten as good as he was going to get. It wasn't just some small minor risk and gambled the team's future with that trade on a very long shot. He bet everything on a horse(or whatever) that had 1000 to 1(I think that's how it's supposed to be said) odds of winning. And needless to say you dont bet everything you have on those kinds of odds. Now about your last sentence, the Van Horn trade triggered a sequence of events that seriously damaged the Knicks. The Knicks started losing immediately after the trade. Houston came back way too soon to bail them out, which he did since they started winning. But he reinjured himself in the process. If we never did the Van Horn trade, there is no reason to think we wouldnt have kept on winning, Houston would never have had to come back and hurt himself and he would have been ready for this season. Also since Houston was a question mark to come back at the start of the season Isiah had to get Crawford. The Bulls strong armed us into trading Mutumbo who would be a tremendous difference maker considering our weak perimeter defense. If we still had Van Horn we would have been able to wait out the Bulls until they decided to take the package we offered them(Moochie Norris in place of Mutumbo). We would have been able to risk them saying no because Van Horn was doing well enough for us whereas they wanted to move Crawford. So we would have had: Marbury, Houston(healthy), Van Horn and Crawford coming off the bench as well as Mutumbo protecting the basket(maybe even gotten Nazr if we wanted). That team is definetely superior to the team we have now. So yes, that trade was a complete disaster.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Knicks Analyst:</div><div class="quote_post">They were developing into a team to beat.</div> AHAHHDHAHAHAAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAA AT 27-30 THEY WERE A POWERHOUSE HAHAHAHAHA Look, every team goes on winning streaks. Every team has high points in a season when they play like a great team, even though there not. The Knicks were playing reasonable well early on in the season and then fell off, not because of a trade, just because thats what happens. Look at the Raptors. they were great the first few games this year and then fell off, only to win 12 of 14 in January, and then they fell off again. Just becuase the team had one 9 of there last 14 doesnt mean they were going to continue that, or that the were good enough to maintain it. Streaks happen. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Knicks Analyst:</div><div class="quote_post">Are you kidding? Better off? Is that a joke? Did you watch one Knicks game when we had Marbury and Van Horn? Judging from that post, I'll guess you didn't and you're just saying things for the purpose of saying things.</div> You do whatever you want lady. 1) You talk like KVH's numbers and play were great...they were good..not great 2) The Knicks were still a mediocre team with KVH Why do you always use the "did/do you even watch games"??? Is that all you got Tina? Like i've said a million times I WATCH THE FRIGGIN GAMES!!!! The trade COULD of worked out, i've said why but i'll spell it out for you little buddy. TT had more natural talent, more upside, more potential, more skill than KVH, he just didnt use them. The knock on KVH before he was a Knick was his inconsistency, lack of heart, and no defence. The knock on TT when he was a Buck was his inconsistency, lack of heart, and no defence. Sound familiar!! Well...the thought might of been, "if NY can make KVH play to his skills, maybe TT will do the same and we'll get Nazr has icing on the cake." If TT did make a similiar jump to what KVH did coming to New York, he could of been better than KVH. Nazr was already better than Doleac, and had potential, regardless of what you say about "3rd string". Doleac was even less of a factor! So Now you look at the trade, sure TT didnt get motivated, and continued his subpar play. But Nazr picks up the slack alot. Nazr is has good if not better than KVH is, and he's a more likely peice to fit into future plans. Plain and simple bud, the trade could of been a boost to NY and get them out of mediocrity. It didnt work, but i dont think they're any worse than what they were. Van Horn was on the roster during the 2003-2004 season for 57 games. During those 57 games you guys won 27 of them!!!! So with Van Horn the Knicks were an AMAZING 27-30!!!!! WOW WHY DID YOU GUYS MAKE A TRADE YOU WERE ON FIRE!!!! You make trades to improve a team. Sometimes its a risk. Sometimes you need to trade a player thats doing well inorder to get a high trade value for him, thus getting more in return. If you trade players when they are low you get crap in return. And the Knicks werent exaclty the elite team that you guys repeatedly talked like you were all pre and early season. And Knicks Analyst: Quote from you.... "Nazr Mohamed, Center - Yeah, he?s still playing center for the Knicks. The Knick failed to acquire Erick Dampier this year, and it may come back to bite us. Nazr was never much of a center. He?s 100% bench material, there is simply no doubt. When he comes off the bench he plays for a short while, but in that time he plays with great intensity. However, when he starts his game is dull and seemingly ineffective. His determination quickly dissolves after about 8 minutes of game time. He has no good moves in the post and let?s just say he?s ?not much? from outside. Another bad year for Nazt, that?s all I have to say. Grade: C+ " How could you say that about Nazr...did you even watch Knicks games? Do you even know anything about the game? Was that a joke? You've made more ridiculous statements than mrj18 and you try questioning me and my knowledge?? You've made enough stupid comments for me to call you out on your knowledge or how much you watch the game, but i dont. Whenever i see that you've made a post i always think to myself..."hmm..who's/what's he blaming this week". Regardless of this stupid arguement about whether the trade was good the point remains that Nazr makes up for where TT is lacking when compared to KVH's play has a Knick. And dont say "could of traded just for him"....because who knows if thats true!? What would you of traded? And if you had maybe that would of made it impossible to trade for Crawford! Trades are made and sometimes they dont work out. I think this one was a draw because Nazr is doing very well. End of story.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Tribute to H2O:</div><div class="quote_post">First off the Hawks didnt want him. The only compensation they got was getting rid of his contract. They agreed to waive Doleac so that Isiah could get him back. They didnt want Nazr. We could have given up ANYTHING to get Nazr. Why do you keep saying he had decent skills when he had none? All he had was athleticism which was the sole reason the trade was made(that and to get rid of Van Horn). If anything Doleac had the edge in skill because he actually knew how to play. Running fast and jumping high are not skills. Knowing how to set picks, knowing how to draw the offensive, knowing how to shoot are skills. He had no real edge in numbers to Doleac and Doleac was a more aggressive defender. Also the case could be made the reason why his numbers were as good as they were is because his team was that bad. It's pretty easy to grab some offensive rebounds and get some put backs when your team cant make a basket to save their lives. </div> You can teach how to set picks and post moves...Doleac had not potential...everyone knew he was maxed out. Nazr had the skills that Doleac didnt and with the right teacher there's no reason to think he couldnt learn the others...and he did learn. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Tribute to H2O:</div><div class="quote_post"> You're still obsessing over the numbers and not thinking about the chemistry and other intangibles. Did you not read my other post? Granted it's long but it might help you understand why the trade was such a disaster. The pick and roll I believe was one of the reasons the Knicks were doing so well at the time. But we couldnt do that after the trade. I keep telling you that no matter how good the players are, just as(if not more) important is the system their in and how their used(see: Gary Payton, Triangle Offense). The way we used Doleac and Van Horn made them valuable to us.</div> 27-30 =so well? <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Tribute to H2O:</div><div class="quote_post"> How hard do you think it is to get a player that is unknown, has no real skills and has a big contract? We probably could have signed some bum/s and tried some sort three way deal. I'm not the GM so I'm not sure how it could have been done. I cant exactly call up a GM and start talking about trade possibilites. But people who are on the inside say that there were definetely other ways to get Mohammed in the offseason.</div> i dont think you could sign a guy from the FA wire and then trade him for a guy....Atlanta could of just signed him themselves. People contected to NY basketball bullshit alot, there might of been ways...but who knows. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Tribute to H2O:</div><div class="quote_post"> You're saying the trade was good because it could have paid off. I dont know how you could think that since anyone who knew TT knew that he was unreachable and that he had gotten as good as he was going to get. It wasn't just some small minor risk and gambled the team's future with that trade on a very long shot. He bet everything on a horse(or whatever) that had 1000 to 1(I think that's how it's supposed to be said) odds of winning. And needless to say you dont bet everything you have on those kinds of odds. Now about your last sentence, the Van Horn trade triggered a sequence of events that seriously damaged the Knicks.</div> THATS WHAT THEY SAID ABOUT VANHORN! Last time i'll say this....at the pace the Knicks were going WITH Van Horn they would of won 5 more games than they did had they kept him. It was hardly earth shattering fall from grace. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Tribute to H2O:</div><div class="quote_post"> The Knicks started losing immediately after the trade. Houston came back way too soon to bail them out, which he did since they started winning. But he reinjured himself in the process. If we never did the Van Horn trade, there is no reason to think we wouldnt have kept on winning, Houston would never have had to come back and hurt himself and he would have been ready for this season. Also since Houston was a question mark to come back at the start of the season Isiah had to get Crawford. The Bulls strong armed us into trading Mutumbo who would be a tremendous difference maker considering our weak perimeter defense. If we still had Van Horn we would have been able to wait out the Bulls until they decided to take the package we offered them(Moochie Norris in place of Mutumbo). We would have been able to risk them saying no because Van Horn was doing well enough for us whereas they wanted to move Crawford. So we would have had: Marbury, Houston(healthy), Van Horn and Crawford coming off the bench as well as Mutumbo protecting the basket(maybe even gotten Nazr if we wanted). That team is definetely superior to the team we have now. So yes, that trade was a complete disaster.</div> WHO KNOWS WHAT MIGHT OF HAPPENED!! You're making assumptions about who you could of strong armed into what, it doesnt work. Maybe Chicago wanted Motumbo so they could trade him to another team afterwards to pick up something esle...maybe a roll player, or a pick, or cash, who knows. But to say you could of gotten Crawford with a package that they repeatedly turned down just because you have Van Horn? That doestn make any sense. And BTW Motumbo check out the minutes Motumbo is getting....he's like 42 years old or something like that, and you're going to have him has your starting center with Doleac behind him.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Knicks Analyst:</div><div class="quote_post">Whatever you say. (1) But haven't we all gone over the idea that Mohhamed would have been easy to acquire without having to do this KVH/TT swap? (2)Yes we have, and it's obvious Atlanta would've taken something directly from us...(3)at the time he was a 3rd string over-paid center. (4)What you see today is a product of good coaching from Mark Aguirre. (5)Wake up.</div> 1) yes we have, and i've said you dont know anything for sure cause it didnt happen. 2) I doubt they'd take Doleac for Nazr straight up, it just doesnt work cap wise, or intelligence wise. And like I'VE said...any trade you talk about making outside of what actually happend you have to consider how that would affect the Crawford signing 3) As opposed to the 3rd string over paid players you already have? 4) Maybe in part, but you never know and you dont know for sure. Why didnt Doleac show the same improvement. 5) Eat Me End of story...i'm done in this thread. You just use circular reasoning to help your ridiculous comments. You arent a very logical thinker are you? You'd bad mouth any trade that didnt work out and claim you knew better. Thats just the type of poster you are
02civic. You are the worst poster in the entire forum, you know nothing of the Knicks, you pretend as if you've watched more than 5 Knicks games in your life. Then when we call you on it, or beat you in an argument you result to complete junk such as: 'Lady', 'That's just the type of poster you are', etc. And in response to this: <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">How could you say that about Nazr...did you even watch Knicks games? Do you even know anything about the game? Was that a joke? You've made more ridiculous statements than mrj18 and you try questioning me and my knowledge?? You've made enough stupid comments for me to call you out on your knowledge or how much you watch the game, but i dont. Whenever i see that you've made a post i always think to myself..."hmm..who's/what's he blaming this week".</div> Let me just say right off the bat that I do know plenty of basketball, more than you will ever dream of, colleges are starting to prepare sports journalism scholarships for me and I'm just in 9th grade. You question my watching the games when in the meantime it's obvious all you do is read the boxscores, and I watch every Knicks game, and I record (To watch more than once and study closely ) the games in which we are: a) Playing a division rival. Playing against a team that has 2 or more perimeter threats c) Playing against a team like San Antonio that can beat you both ways. _________ Nazr dispute. _________ And I say that about Nazr because while he has his good games statistically, he commits stupid fouls in the first 2 minutes, which you wouldn't know about because you don't watch the games. He also bobbles the ball often, and that isn't scored as a turnover 90% of the time, and for each turnover is a loss of possesion and each possesion has the statistical, numerical value of 0.8% points and with 3-6 bobbles per game, you have to extract that from his point total. Plus he never steps up when it's time to make a play on defense, but you wouldn't know that, because you don't watch the games. He also has problems drawing the defense down low because he ocassionally tosses the ball up with just his right, letting people get into position for an easy rebound. Not to mention the fact that his passing is still mediocre. He may have improved but he's no threat. About the Van Horn discussion. Van Horn is twice the player of TT, and if you're just going to pull out the wins and losses, at least extract the games from the W-L in which it was just Van Horn and only show the one with Marbury and Van Horn on the same team. This is over. If you have a problem with me, which you obviously do, please trash me over PM and save the posters the trouble of reading that junk. Thanks.
