Knicks · Tired of the Disrepect (page 2)

nixluva wrote:

loweyecue wrote:You have your opinion others have theirs. Why is it disrespect if people are not thrilled with the mediocrity??

My point is that the Knicks were the #2 seed and most of the downgrades aren't based on any real objective reasons. They just assume that the Nets will be better due to the addition of PP and KG. The Bulls will be better just cuz DRose will be back. The Pacers cuz of Granger and the way things went down in the playoffs against the Knicks. I don't agree with these assessments. The Knicks are right there in the Mix with those teams and could easily end up ahead of them once again this coming season. As much as those other teams can talk about injuries effecting their seasons, The Knicks were #2 despite a ton of missed games to injury as well.

People just don't like the idea that the Knicks are an offensive team that only played timely defense, but then what does that say about the Nets? How are they this big time defensive team? If the Nets are successful it will be due to them being a top offensive team. They aren't built to be a top defensive team. Yet no one is really talking about that as a reason for them not to be ahead of the Knicks.

You don't agree so that makes it non objective? That's actually pretty arrogant. Those rosters added credible winners and multiple time all stars returning from injuries we added a seven foot chucker and will probably lose more than half of our interior defense with Kmart and other older bigs gone.You can assess whatever you like out of it just don't take absolute positions like the trolls do where everyone else is always wrong. Any team can end higher in rankings during the regular season - real team superiority is judged in the playoffs IMO.

Jmpasq wrote:I would take Pierce or Garnett over the pieces we signed

The question is not weather you would take these players, but would you trade three first round picks and give up a couple more players to get them? This thread seems to really be about being pissed off that many are placing us behind the Nets.......and the media (and many Knicks fans) talking up how good of a move this is for the Nets.

The issue (at least for me) is not how the Knicks are ranked for the upcoming season. It's that since Proko and the Nyets came to town, everyone seems to have lost all objectivity and turns a blind eye to the fact that they have made some really bad moves. They moved a significant amount of assets for guys who will retire after 2 years and who in the past two seasons have been on steady declines. This is not to say the Knicks made great moves so far. We continue to be very hampered by Amare's contract and injuries in particular.

foosballnick wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:I would take Pierce or Garnett over the pieces we signed

The question is not weather you would take these players, but would you trade three first round picks and give up a couple more players to get them? This thread seems to really be about being pissed off that many are placing us behind the Nets.......and the media (and many Knicks fans) talking up how good of a move this is for the Nets.

The issue (at least for me) is not how the Knicks are ranked for the upcoming season. It's that since Proko and the Nyets came to town, everyone seems to have lost all objectivity and turns a blind eye to the fact that they have made some really bad moves. They moved a significant amount of assets for guys who will retire after 2 years and who in the past two seasons have been on steady declines. This is not to say the Knicks made great moves so far. We continue to be very hampered by Amare's contract and injuries in particular.

Well maybe we believe Paul Pierce and Garnett on a decline for the last two years are still 4 times as good as Bargnani on the decline for the last two years. Or Rose coming back from injury is by snd far a better addition to the BULLS' core than Brgnani who has for two years failed to come back from injury is to ours.

The Nets were suppose to be better then us last yr

loweyecue wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:I would take Pierce or Garnett over the pieces we signed

The question is not weather you would take these players, but would you trade three first round picks and give up a couple more players to get them? This thread seems to really be about being pissed off that many are placing us behind the Nets.......and the media (and many Knicks fans) talking up how good of a move this is for the Nets.

The issue (at least for me) is not how the Knicks are ranked for the upcoming season. It's that since Proko and the Nyets came to town, everyone seems to have lost all objectivity and turns a blind eye to the fact that they have made some really bad moves. They moved a significant amount of assets for guys who will retire after 2 years and who in the past two seasons have been on steady declines. This is not to say the Knicks made great moves so far. We continue to be very hampered by Amare's contract and injuries in particular.

Well maybe we believe Paul Pierce and Garnett on a decline for the last two years are still 4 times as good as Bargnani on the decline for the last two years. Or Rose coming back from injury is by snd far a better addition to the BULLS' core than Brgnani who has for two years failed to come back from injury is to ours.

You're entitled to believe what you want to believe.

If you are equating that the decline of Pierce and Garnett due to age is equatable to a drop in productivity of a 10 year younger AB due to injury......you lose credibility.

foosballnick wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:I would take Pierce or Garnett over the pieces we signed

The question is not weather you would take these players, but would you trade three first round picks and give up a couple more players to get them? This thread seems to really be about being pissed off that many are placing us behind the Nets.......and the media (and many Knicks fans) talking up how good of a move this is for the Nets.

The issue (at least for me) is not how the Knicks are ranked for the upcoming season. It's that since Proko and the Nyets came to town, everyone seems to have lost all objectivity and turns a blind eye to the fact that they have made some really bad moves. They moved a significant amount of assets for guys who will retire after 2 years and who in the past two seasons have been on steady declines. This is not to say the Knicks made great moves so far. We continue to be very hampered by Amare's contract and injuries in particular.

knicks1248 wrote:even though we finish 2nd in the east last season, going into the playoffs you would swear we were a 5th seed..But it really doesn't matter because most of these analyst change their story game by game, especially the ESPN crew..

The Nets were suppose to be better then us last yr

I didnt think the Nets were better last year but I do believe they r better now. People act like Pierce is done he averaged 19 6 and 5. Garnett is a double double a night. He will be a force on the boards. Pierce and Garnett are both flexible enough players that they can blend in to what the teams needs. They dont have to score to be effective.

foosballnick wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:I would take Pierce or Garnett over the pieces we signed

The question is not weather you would take these players, but would you trade three first round picks and give up a couple more players to get them? This thread seems to really be about being pissed off that many are placing us behind the Nets.......and the media (and many Knicks fans) talking up how good of a move this is for the Nets.

The issue (at least for me) is not how the Knicks are ranked for the upcoming season. It's that since Proko and the Nyets came to town, everyone seems to have lost all objectivity and turns a blind eye to the fact that they have made some really bad moves. They moved a significant amount of assets for guys who will retire after 2 years and who in the past two seasons have been on steady declines. This is not to say the Knicks made great moves so far. We continue to be very hampered by Amare's contract and injuries in particular.

Well maybe we believe Paul Pierce and Garnett on a decline for the last two years are still 4 times as good as Bargnani on the decline for the last two years. Or Rose coming back from injury is by snd far a better addition to the BULLS' core than Brgnani who has for two years failed to come back from injury is to ours.

You're entitled to believe what you want to believe.

If you are equating that the decline of Pierce and Garnett due to age is equatable to a drop in productivity of a 10 year younger AB due to injury......you lose credibility.

I lose credibility? Because I am looking at the results and you are projecting from your own faith based belief system? Age is not the only criteria to be considered when assessing the probability of a full and complete comeback. The dude had two years to do it and couldn't the other two aren't coming back from anything I would take Garnett over Bargs any day if the week for a two year deal right now.

loweyecue wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:I would take Pierce or Garnett over the pieces we signed

The question is not weather you would take these players, but would you trade three first round picks and give up a couple more players to get them? This thread seems to really be about being pissed off that many are placing us behind the Nets.......and the media (and many Knicks fans) talking up how good of a move this is for the Nets.

The issue (at least for me) is not how the Knicks are ranked for the upcoming season. It's that since Proko and the Nyets came to town, everyone seems to have lost all objectivity and turns a blind eye to the fact that they have made some really bad moves. They moved a significant amount of assets for guys who will retire after 2 years and who in the past two seasons have been on steady declines. This is not to say the Knicks made great moves so far. We continue to be very hampered by Amare's contract and injuries in particular.

Well maybe we believe Paul Pierce and Garnett on a decline for the last two years are still 4 times as good as Bargnani on the decline for the last two years. Or Rose coming back from injury is by snd far a better addition to the BULLS' core than Brgnani who has for two years failed to come back from injury is to ours.

You're entitled to believe what you want to believe.

If you are equating that the decline of Pierce and Garnett due to age is equatable to a drop in productivity of a 10 year younger AB due to injury......you lose credibility.

I lose credibility? Because I am looking at the results and you are projecting from your own faith based belief system? Age is not the only criteria to be considered when assessing the probability of a full and complete comeback. The dude had two years to do it and couldn't the other two aren't coming back from anything I would take Garnett over Bargs any day if the week for a two year deal right now.

It's not just about individual talent but how the parts fit together and I really am not that impressed with the idea of JJ, PP and KG holding younger and quicker lineups down. Those reps they have as great players get overplayed. We all have respect for the kind of players PP and KG have been, but to just assume that they'll push the Nets passed the Knicks seems like a stretch to me. It's 82 games plus the playoffs for these guys to prove they have enough left to overtake the other younger teams in the East. I'm not sold that they can.

Thing is the Knicks were better than the Nets without AB. The health issues for AB are a concern but not in the same way that STAT's injuries are. We're talking about a calf strain that cause him to miss about half the games in the lockout shortened season and then elbow injuries last year. Neither are the kind of things that you should expect to be a problem going forward. There's a very good chance AB will be able to bounce back this year.

nixluva wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:I would take Pierce or Garnett over the pieces we signed

The question is not weather you would take these players, but would you trade three first round picks and give up a couple more players to get them? This thread seems to really be about being pissed off that many are placing us behind the Nets.......and the media (and many Knicks fans) talking up how good of a move this is for the Nets.

The issue (at least for me) is not how the Knicks are ranked for the upcoming season. It's that since Proko and the Nyets came to town, everyone seems to have lost all objectivity and turns a blind eye to the fact that they have made some really bad moves. They moved a significant amount of assets for guys who will retire after 2 years and who in the past two seasons have been on steady declines. This is not to say the Knicks made great moves so far. We continue to be very hampered by Amare's contract and injuries in particular.

Well maybe we believe Paul Pierce and Garnett on a decline for the last two years are still 4 times as good as Bargnani on the decline for the last two years. Or Rose coming back from injury is by snd far a better addition to the BULLS' core than Brgnani who has for two years failed to come back from injury is to ours.

You're entitled to believe what you want to believe.

If you are equating that the decline of Pierce and Garnett due to age is equatable to a drop in productivity of a 10 year younger AB due to injury......you lose credibility.

I lose credibility? Because I am looking at the results and you are projecting from your own faith based belief system? Age is not the only criteria to be considered when assessing the probability of a full and complete comeback. The dude had two years to do it and couldn't the other two aren't coming back from anything I would take Garnett over Bargs any day if the week for a two year deal right now.

It's not just about individual talent but how the parts fit together and I really am not that impressed with the idea of JJ, PP and KG holding younger and quicker lineups down. Those reps they have as great players get overplayed. We all have respect for the kind of players PP and KG have been, but to just assume that they'll push the Nets passed the Knicks seems like a stretch to me. It's 82 games plus the playoffs for these guys to prove they have enough left to overtake the other younger teams in the East. I'm not sold that they can.

Thing is the Knicks were better than the Nets without AB. The health issues for AB are a concern but not in the same way that STAT's injuries are. We're talking about a calf strain that cause him to miss about half the games in the lockout shortened season and then elbow injuries last year. Neither are the kind of things that you should expect to be a problem going forward. There's a very good chance AB will be able to bounce back this year.

NixLuva, would you say the same things if PP and KG were added to the NYK's?
Or would you concentrate on what they can do more?

RonRon wrote:

nixluva wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:I would take Pierce or Garnett over the pieces we signed

The question is not weather you would take these players, but would you trade three first round picks and give up a couple more players to get them? This thread seems to really be about being pissed off that many are placing us behind the Nets.......and the media (and many Knicks fans) talking up how good of a move this is for the Nets.

The issue (at least for me) is not how the Knicks are ranked for the upcoming season. It's that since Proko and the Nyets came to town, everyone seems to have lost all objectivity and turns a blind eye to the fact that they have made some really bad moves. They moved a significant amount of assets for guys who will retire after 2 years and who in the past two seasons have been on steady declines. This is not to say the Knicks made great moves so far. We continue to be very hampered by Amare's contract and injuries in particular.

Well maybe we believe Paul Pierce and Garnett on a decline for the last two years are still 4 times as good as Bargnani on the decline for the last two years. Or Rose coming back from injury is by snd far a better addition to the BULLS' core than Brgnani who has for two years failed to come back from injury is to ours.

You're entitled to believe what you want to believe.

If you are equating that the decline of Pierce and Garnett due to age is equatable to a drop in productivity of a 10 year younger AB due to injury......you lose credibility.

I lose credibility? Because I am looking at the results and you are projecting from your own faith based belief system? Age is not the only criteria to be considered when assessing the probability of a full and complete comeback. The dude had two years to do it and couldn't the other two aren't coming back from anything I would take Garnett over Bargs any day if the week for a two year deal right now.

It's not just about individual talent but how the parts fit together and I really am not that impressed with the idea of JJ, PP and KG holding younger and quicker lineups down. Those reps they have as great players get overplayed. We all have respect for the kind of players PP and KG have been, but to just assume that they'll push the Nets passed the Knicks seems like a stretch to me. It's 82 games plus the playoffs for these guys to prove they have enough left to overtake the other younger teams in the East. I'm not sold that they can.

Thing is the Knicks were better than the Nets without AB. The health issues for AB are a concern but not in the same way that STAT's injuries are. We're talking about a calf strain that cause him to miss about half the games in the lockout shortened season and then elbow injuries last year. Neither are the kind of things that you should expect to be a problem going forward. There's a very good chance AB will be able to bounce back this year.

NixLuva, would you say the same things if PP and KG were added to the NYK's?
Or would you concentrate on what they can do more?

Bonn1997 wrote:

RonRon wrote:

nixluva wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:I would take Pierce or Garnett over the pieces we signed

The question is not weather you would take these players, but would you trade three first round picks and give up a couple more players to get them? This thread seems to really be about being pissed off that many are placing us behind the Nets.......and the media (and many Knicks fans) talking up how good of a move this is for the Nets.

The issue (at least for me) is not how the Knicks are ranked for the upcoming season. It's that since Proko and the Nyets came to town, everyone seems to have lost all objectivity and turns a blind eye to the fact that they have made some really bad moves. They moved a significant amount of assets for guys who will retire after 2 years and who in the past two seasons have been on steady declines. This is not to say the Knicks made great moves so far. We continue to be very hampered by Amare's contract and injuries in particular.

Well maybe we believe Paul Pierce and Garnett on a decline for the last two years are still 4 times as good as Bargnani on the decline for the last two years. Or Rose coming back from injury is by snd far a better addition to the BULLS' core than Brgnani who has for two years failed to come back from injury is to ours.

You're entitled to believe what you want to believe.

If you are equating that the decline of Pierce and Garnett due to age is equatable to a drop in productivity of a 10 year younger AB due to injury......you lose credibility.

I lose credibility? Because I am looking at the results and you are projecting from your own faith based belief system? Age is not the only criteria to be considered when assessing the probability of a full and complete comeback. The dude had two years to do it and couldn't the other two aren't coming back from anything I would take Garnett over Bargs any day if the week for a two year deal right now.

It's not just about individual talent but how the parts fit together and I really am not that impressed with the idea of JJ, PP and KG holding younger and quicker lineups down. Those reps they have as great players get overplayed. We all have respect for the kind of players PP and KG have been, but to just assume that they'll push the Nets passed the Knicks seems like a stretch to me. It's 82 games plus the playoffs for these guys to prove they have enough left to overtake the other younger teams in the East. I'm not sold that they can.

Thing is the Knicks were better than the Nets without AB. The health issues for AB are a concern but not in the same way that STAT's injuries are. We're talking about a calf strain that cause him to miss about half the games in the lockout shortened season and then elbow injuries last year. Neither are the kind of things that you should expect to be a problem going forward. There's a very good chance AB will be able to bounce back this year.

NixLuva, would you say the same things if PP and KG were added to the NYK's?
Or would you concentrate on what they can do more?

Do you even have to ask?!

Actually I love KG and always have, but I wouldn't want any part of PP. I also think you can't just examine those guys in a vacuum. You have to also imagine what the Knicks would've given up and the rest of the roster around those guys. PP and KG wore down and lest you guys forget that PP was being slowed down by Felton of all people. You guys wanna try and make me sound like a hypocrite, but i'm being honest here. I don't think the Nets are necessarily better than the Knicks now just cuz they have PP and KG now. You guys can jump on the Nets bandwagon if you want, but I heard this same crap last year about how the Nets were the best team in NY and that didn't happen.

Deron-JJ-Bropez have a year under their belt to build chemistry. Pierce if used properly won't burn out and I doubt he will be asked to carry the load.

Then there is Deron who "was" considered top 3 point guard paring up with Kidd who are very much on board with the program. His stats might not improve but his leadership might.

Nothing BTW takes away from the positive season the knicks had and the potential that exists. Doubt with the knicks exist as Bargnani and Amare have not been living up to their contracts and have been injured. Nyets Bropez had an all star game and was healthy, JJ was good (not great) and Deron when healthy was in top form but needs to improve on it.

Nets went from pathetic to 49 game winner and replaced Wallace/Hump with Pierce/KG. If Plumlee, who scored 17pg in college can give them something thier front line of KG, Bropez, Blatch and Plum is big and talented. Three of them under the age of 30!

with Chicago getting rose back, Indiana proving to be a good team, Miami is still the champs, and teams like Cleveland and Washington improving the east on paper will be stronger.

To what extent? We'll see!

nixluva wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

RonRon wrote:

nixluva wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:I would take Pierce or Garnett over the pieces we signed

The question is not weather you would take these players, but would you trade three first round picks and give up a couple more players to get them? This thread seems to really be about being pissed off that many are placing us behind the Nets.......and the media (and many Knicks fans) talking up how good of a move this is for the Nets.

The issue (at least for me) is not how the Knicks are ranked for the upcoming season. It's that since Proko and the Nyets came to town, everyone seems to have lost all objectivity and turns a blind eye to the fact that they have made some really bad moves. They moved a significant amount of assets for guys who will retire after 2 years and who in the past two seasons have been on steady declines. This is not to say the Knicks made great moves so far. We continue to be very hampered by Amare's contract and injuries in particular.

Well maybe we believe Paul Pierce and Garnett on a decline for the last two years are still 4 times as good as Bargnani on the decline for the last two years. Or Rose coming back from injury is by snd far a better addition to the BULLS' core than Brgnani who has for two years failed to come back from injury is to ours.

You're entitled to believe what you want to believe.

If you are equating that the decline of Pierce and Garnett due to age is equatable to a drop in productivity of a 10 year younger AB due to injury......you lose credibility.

I lose credibility? Because I am looking at the results and you are projecting from your own faith based belief system? Age is not the only criteria to be considered when assessing the probability of a full and complete comeback. The dude had two years to do it and couldn't the other two aren't coming back from anything I would take Garnett over Bargs any day if the week for a two year deal right now.

It's not just about individual talent but how the parts fit together and I really am not that impressed with the idea of JJ, PP and KG holding younger and quicker lineups down. Those reps they have as great players get overplayed. We all have respect for the kind of players PP and KG have been, but to just assume that they'll push the Nets passed the Knicks seems like a stretch to me. It's 82 games plus the playoffs for these guys to prove they have enough left to overtake the other younger teams in the East. I'm not sold that they can.

Thing is the Knicks were better than the Nets without AB. The health issues for AB are a concern but not in the same way that STAT's injuries are. We're talking about a calf strain that cause him to miss about half the games in the lockout shortened season and then elbow injuries last year. Neither are the kind of things that you should expect to be a problem going forward. There's a very good chance AB will be able to bounce back this year.

NixLuva, would you say the same things if PP and KG were added to the NYK's?
Or would you concentrate on what they can do more?

Do you even have to ask?!

Actually I love KG and always have, but I wouldn't want any part of PP. I also think you can't just examine those guys in a vacuum. You have to also imagine what the Knicks would've given up and the rest of the roster around those guys. PP and KG wore down and lest you guys forget that PP was being slowed down by Felton of all people. You guys wanna try and make me sound like a hypocrite, but i'm being honest here. I don't think the Nets are necessarily better than the Knicks now just cuz they have PP and KG now. You guys can jump on the Nets bandwagon if you want, but I heard this same crap last year about how the Nets were the best team in NY and that didn't happen.

For a fact you would say we would be improved title contenders
I never called you anything but you did not even bother to answer my question

Let me rephrase, if PP and KG were added to the Knick's, do they dramatically improve our chances of winning a ring or not?

I have never told you to jump on the Laker's/Dantoni bandwagon, and I don't intend to, don't get defensive because you know would react COMPLETELY different for the same 2 players on 2 different teams

loweyecue wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:I would take Pierce or Garnett over the pieces we signed

The question is not weather you would take these players, but would you trade three first round picks and give up a couple more players to get them? This thread seems to really be about being pissed off that many are placing us behind the Nets.......and the media (and many Knicks fans) talking up how good of a move this is for the Nets.

The issue (at least for me) is not how the Knicks are ranked for the upcoming season. It's that since Proko and the Nyets came to town, everyone seems to have lost all objectivity and turns a blind eye to the fact that they have made some really bad moves. They moved a significant amount of assets for guys who will retire after 2 years and who in the past two seasons have been on steady declines. This is not to say the Knicks made great moves so far. We continue to be very hampered by Amare's contract and injuries in particular.

Well maybe we believe Paul Pierce and Garnett on a decline for the last two years are still 4 times as good as Bargnani on the decline for the last two years. Or Rose coming back from injury is by snd far a better addition to the BULLS' core than Brgnani who has for two years failed to come back from injury is to ours.

You're entitled to believe what you want to believe.

If you are equating that the decline of Pierce and Garnett due to age is equatable to a drop in productivity of a 10 year younger AB due to injury......you lose credibility.

I lose credibility? Because I am looking at the results and you are projecting from your own faith based belief system? Age is not the only criteria to be considered when assessing the probability of a full and complete comeback. The dude had two years to do it and couldn't the other two aren't coming back from anything I would take Garnett over Bargs any day if the week for a two year deal right now.

Deflect all you want - you have not addressed the question/issue. The Nets traded 3 First Round picks in this deal and many (including you) are complimenting them for the acquisition. My guess is that if the Knicks made the same move.....trading 3 Future First round picks and a bunch of role players for KG, PP and Terry, most (including you) would be blasting the move.

So the question is not weather you would take Garnett over Bargs......It is, would you trade Bargs and a First rounder (perhaps more) to obtain Garnett right now?

nixluva wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:I would take Pierce or Garnett over the pieces we signed

The question is not weather you would take these players, but would you trade three first round picks and give up a couple more players to get them? This thread seems to really be about being pissed off that many are placing us behind the Nets.......and the media (and many Knicks fans) talking up how good of a move this is for the Nets.

The issue (at least for me) is not how the Knicks are ranked for the upcoming season. It's that since Proko and the Nyets came to town, everyone seems to have lost all objectivity and turns a blind eye to the fact that they have made some really bad moves. They moved a significant amount of assets for guys who will retire after 2 years and who in the past two seasons have been on steady declines. This is not to say the Knicks made great moves so far. We continue to be very hampered by Amare's contract and injuries in particular.

Well maybe we believe Paul Pierce and Garnett on a decline for the last two years are still 4 times as good as Bargnani on the decline for the last two years. Or Rose coming back from injury is by snd far a better addition to the BULLS' core than Brgnani who has for two years failed to come back from injury is to ours.

You're entitled to believe what you want to believe.

If you are equating that the decline of Pierce and Garnett due to age is equatable to a drop in productivity of a 10 year younger AB due to injury......you lose credibility.

I lose credibility? Because I am looking at the results and you are projecting from your own faith based belief system? Age is not the only criteria to be considered when assessing the probability of a full and complete comeback. The dude had two years to do it and couldn't the other two aren't coming back from anything I would take Garnett over Bargs any day if the week for a two year deal right now.

It's not just about individual talent but how the parts fit together and I really am not that impressed with the idea of JJ, PP and KG holding younger and quicker lineups down. Those reps they have as great players get overplayed. We all have respect for the kind of players PP and KG have been, but to just assume that they'll push the Nets passed the Knicks seems like a stretch to me. It's 82 games plus the playoffs for these guys to prove they have enough left to overtake the other younger teams in the East. I'm not sold that they can.

Thing is the Knicks were better than the Nets without AB. The health issues for AB are a concern but not in the same way that STAT's injuries are. We're talking about a calf strain that cause him to miss about half the games in the lockout shortened season and then elbow injuries last year. Neither are the kind of things that you should expect to be a problem going forward. There's a very good chance AB will be able to bounce back this year.

So the nets can't defend agains quicker teams? Can we defend against bigger teams? The Pacers clobbered us with size and we just let our interior defense get even worse. You choose to look at Bargs and focus only on what he adds and then you look at PP/ Garnett and focus on what they take away. Not sure that's a very balanced assessment.

AB will bounce back to what exactly? What evidence do you have that Woodson will even bother to integrate him into the offense? Heck we don't even HAVE an offense worth integrating into. Copeland could score too and he was much more dependable - what did Woodson do to get him into the offense more? We didn't need more scoring, it's just we need people to come in and defer to our one dimensional black hole. Cops s was starting to take shots away from him, so hrs topped seeing PT - exact same thing happened with Lin last year. Maybe they are not top picks in a draft but they were able to a score. If you so desperately need scoring shouldn't at least try to play the scorers you have? Ay what a concept!

foosballnick wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:I would take Pierce or Garnett over the pieces we signed

The question is not weather you would take these players, but would you trade three first round picks and give up a couple more players to get them? This thread seems to really be about being pissed off that many are placing us behind the Nets.......and the media (and many Knicks fans) talking up how good of a move this is for the Nets.

The issue (at least for me) is not how the Knicks are ranked for the upcoming season. It's that since Proko and the Nyets came to town, everyone seems to have lost all objectivity and turns a blind eye to the fact that they have made some really bad moves. They moved a significant amount of assets for guys who will retire after 2 years and who in the past two seasons have been on steady declines. This is not to say the Knicks made great moves so far. We continue to be very hampered by Amare's contract and injuries in particular.

Well maybe we believe Paul Pierce and Garnett on a decline for the last two years are still 4 times as good as Bargnani on the decline for the last two years. Or Rose coming back from injury is by snd far a better addition to the BULLS' core than Brgnani who has for two years failed to come back from injury is to ours.

You're entitled to believe what you want to believe.

If you are equating that the decline of Pierce and Garnett due to age is equatable to a drop in productivity of a 10 year younger AB due to injury......you lose credibility.

I lose credibility? Because I am looking at the results and you are projecting from your own faith based belief system? Age is not the only criteria to be considered when assessing the probability of a full and complete comeback. The dude had two years to do it and couldn't the other two aren't coming back from anything I would take Garnett over Bargs any day if the week for a two year deal right now.

Deflect all you want - you have not addressed the question/issue. The Nets traded 3 First Round picks in this deal and many (including you) are complimenting them for the acquisition. My guess is that if the Knicks made the same move.....trading 3 Future First round picks and a bunch of role players for KG, PP and Terry, most (including you) would be blasting the move.

So the question is not weather you would take Garnett over Bargs......It is, would you trade Bargs and a First rounder (perhaps more) to obtain Garnett right now?

That was not the question with which the thread was started. The thread was created because nixluva felt people valued the Nets, Bulls and Pacers over the Knicks unfairly. The reason people do that is each team got better this offseason.

We just traded a bunch if picks and role players for Bargs ( role player) and yes I didn't like the trade. You are right I wouldn't like that trade for KG/ PP either. But that is different discussion.
KG/PP have more value for two years than Bargs IMO, so if we traded the same exact package for them, I would be much less displeased than I am now.

loweyecue wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:I would take Pierce or Garnett over the pieces we signed

The question is not weather you would take these players, but would you trade three first round picks and give up a couple more players to get them? This thread seems to really be about being pissed off that many are placing us behind the Nets.......and the media (and many Knicks fans) talking up how good of a move this is for the Nets.

The issue (at least for me) is not how the Knicks are ranked for the upcoming season. It's that since Proko and the Nyets came to town, everyone seems to have lost all objectivity and turns a blind eye to the fact that they have made some really bad moves. They moved a significant amount of assets for guys who will retire after 2 years and who in the past two seasons have been on steady declines. This is not to say the Knicks made great moves so far. We continue to be very hampered by Amare's contract and injuries in particular.

Well maybe we believe Paul Pierce and Garnett on a decline for the last two years are still 4 times as good as Bargnani on the decline for the last two years. Or Rose coming back from injury is by snd far a better addition to the BULLS' core than Brgnani who has for two years failed to come back from injury is to ours.

You're entitled to believe what you want to believe.

If you are equating that the decline of Pierce and Garnett due to age is equatable to a drop in productivity of a 10 year younger AB due to injury......you lose credibility.

I lose credibility? Because I am looking at the results and you are projecting from your own faith based belief system? Age is not the only criteria to be considered when assessing the probability of a full and complete comeback. The dude had two years to do it and couldn't the other two aren't coming back from anything I would take Garnett over Bargs any day if the week for a two year deal right now.

Deflect all you want - you have not addressed the question/issue. The Nets traded 3 First Round picks in this deal and many (including you) are complimenting them for the acquisition. My guess is that if the Knicks made the same move.....trading 3 Future First round picks and a bunch of role players for KG, PP and Terry, most (including you) would be blasting the move.

So the question is not weather you would take Garnett over Bargs......It is, would you trade Bargs and a First rounder (perhaps more) to obtain Garnett right now?

That was not the question with which the thread was started. The thread was created because nixluva felt people valued the Nets, Bulls and Pacers over the Knicks unfairly. The reason people do that is each team got better this offseason.

We just traded a bunch if picks and role players for Bargs ( role player) and yes I didn't like the trade. You are right I wouldn't like that trade for KG/ PP either. But that is different discussion.
KG/PP have more value for two years than Bargs IMO, so if we traded the same exact package for them, I would be much less displeased than I am now.

Had we acquired PP and KG, my point is NixLuva would be saying we acquired 2 HOF players, former MVP finals in PP, former DPOY in KG, and how they would add to our chances of our ring and bring excitement back to NYK's with leadership/veteran experience etc...

We all may be bias as Knick fans here and Nixluva is extremely bias in the order of

1- Dantoni, his philosophy and weakness's
2- Knick's management/Gm's/franchise
3- Any players Knick's acquire or/and lose

loweyecue wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:I would take Pierce or Garnett over the pieces we signed

The question is not weather you would take these players, but would you trade three first round picks and give up a couple more players to get them? This thread seems to really be about being pissed off that many are placing us behind the Nets.......and the media (and many Knicks fans) talking up how good of a move this is for the Nets.

The issue (at least for me) is not how the Knicks are ranked for the upcoming season. It's that since Proko and the Nyets came to town, everyone seems to have lost all objectivity and turns a blind eye to the fact that they have made some really bad moves. They moved a significant amount of assets for guys who will retire after 2 years and who in the past two seasons have been on steady declines. This is not to say the Knicks made great moves so far. We continue to be very hampered by Amare's contract and injuries in particular.

Well maybe we believe Paul Pierce and Garnett on a decline for the last two years are still 4 times as good as Bargnani on the decline for the last two years. Or Rose coming back from injury is by snd far a better addition to the BULLS' core than Brgnani who has for two years failed to come back from injury is to ours.

You're entitled to believe what you want to believe.

If you are equating that the decline of Pierce and Garnett due to age is equatable to a drop in productivity of a 10 year younger AB due to injury......you lose credibility.

I lose credibility? Because I am looking at the results and you are projecting from your own faith based belief system? Age is not the only criteria to be considered when assessing the probability of a full and complete comeback. The dude had two years to do it and couldn't the other two aren't coming back from anything I would take Garnett over Bargs any day if the week for a two year deal right now.

Deflect all you want - you have not addressed the question/issue. The Nets traded 3 First Round picks in this deal and many (including you) are complimenting them for the acquisition. My guess is that if the Knicks made the same move.....trading 3 Future First round picks and a bunch of role players for KG, PP and Terry, most (including you) would be blasting the move.

So the question is not weather you would take Garnett over Bargs......It is, would you trade Bargs and a First rounder (perhaps more) to obtain Garnett right now?

That was not the question with which the thread was started. The thread was created because nixluva felt people valued the Nets, Bulls and Pacers over the Knicks unfairly. The reason people do that is each team got better this offseason.

We just traded a bunch if picks and role players for Bargs ( role player) and yes I didn't like the trade. You are right I wouldn't like that trade for KG/ PP either. But that is different discussion.
KG/PP have more value for two years than Bargs IMO, so if we traded the same exact package for them, I would be much less displeased than I am now.

I think Nixluva is saying that the Knicks also got better.....but people tend to disrespect the Knicks, and hence, focus on potential negatives, instead of potential positives. For some reason, those same people focus on potential positives for teams like the Nets, often overlooking the potential negatives.

You have provided an example of that behavior. You have classified the Knicks as giving up a bunch of picks and role players for a role player. Someone who looked at things from a different perspective might say that the Knicks gave up a late first rounder a very late 2nd rounder and another 2nd....one guy who did not play at all, and another who's skills were severely exposed in the last two playoff years.......for a guy who is a good offensive threat and starter when healthy. If he plays well the Knicks will have an asset to play or deal, if he does not play well, the Knicks get a little more extra cap space a year early.

The Nets have been portrayed as getting two HOF players and former stars who will help lead them to challenge for a championship. Some have conveniently forgotten that there are both short and long term implications to a trade. The Nets current salary will be at 100 mil....equaling an 80 million luxury tax. They traded first rounders in 2014, 2016 and 2018 in this trade. They also gave Boston the right to take the better 1st Round choice in 2017 by swapping picks. Pierce is only signed through next year, so there is no guarantee he will be back. The Nets salary next year is at roughly 80 mil with 8 guys (not including Blatche who has a player option). The following year, the Nets are at roughly 65 mil with four guys (aging Deron, and old JJ included). They better hope that they win this year......because it seems like they will likely be a bottom feeder in a few years.