|
|
Post by greatgates on Dec 4, 2009 18:35:51 GMT -5
if he is also an expiring then why wouldn't walsh pull the trigger? just because we can't unload the other millstones? i'd do it but walsh will probably end up getting a bit more out of the deal. the trade on the face of it is an in-season upgrade if you ask me. yes you lose a "scorer" who scores at the expense of the offense and not in the flow of the offense, is a dummy and a chucker and inconsistent and who provides no leadership and takes away shots from other players who will be with the knicks after this season-- especially gallinari and hill-- and in exchange you get a better-conditioned athlete who looks like he might enjoy playing defense and finishing if we ever get a decent point guard. in short the trade makes sense in terms of dovetailing nicely with the second of two agendas i have mentioned elsewhere here: that is, the attempt to get a core group of young keepers to cohere between games 25 and 82 and end up looking like the type of situation that lebron james could foresee for himself. harrington would not be a part of that and the longer he remains on the roster the harder that agenda is to fulfill. Scores at the expense of the offense?  ? There is no offense without Al. Some games they would have scored in the seventies. |
|
|
|
Post by mercury on Dec 4, 2009 19:01:20 GMT -5
The Knicks wont sign Al next season. The Knicks should look to trade him for some pieces. I rather trade him for a player still on a cheap rookie contract.
|
|
|
|
Post by dk7th on Dec 4, 2009 21:25:59 GMT -5
if he is also an expiring then why wouldn't walsh pull the trigger? just because we can't unload the other millstones? i'd do it but walsh will probably end up getting a bit more out of the deal. the trade on the face of it is an in-season upgrade if you ask me. yes you lose a "scorer" who scores at the expense of the offense and not in the flow of the offense, is a dummy and a chucker and inconsistent and who provides no leadership and takes away shots from other players who will be with the knicks after this season-- especially gallinari and hill-- and in exchange you get a better-conditioned athlete who looks like he might enjoy playing defense and finishing if we ever get a decent point guard. in short the trade makes sense in terms of dovetailing nicely with the second of two agendas i have mentioned elsewhere here: that is, the attempt to get a core group of young keepers to cohere between games 25 and 82 and end up looking like the type of situation that lebron james could foresee for himself. harrington would not be a part of that and the longer he remains on the roster the harder that agenda is to fulfill. Scores at the expense of the offense? ? There is no offense without Al. Some games they would have scored in the seventies. if he is also an expiring then why wouldn't walsh pull the trigger? just because we can't unload the other millstones? i'd do it but walsh will probably end up getting a bit more out of the deal. the trade on the face of it is an in-season upgrade if you ask me. yes you lose a "scorer" who scores at the expense of the offense and not in the flow of the offense, is a dummy and a chucker and inconsistent and who provides no leadership and takes away shots from other players who will be with the knicks after this season-- especially gallinari and hill-- and in exchange you get a better-conditioned athlete who looks like he might enjoy playing defense and finishing if we ever get a decent point guard. in short the trade makes sense in terms of dovetailing nicely with the second of two agendas i have mentioned elsewhere here: that is, the attempt to get a core group of young keepers to cohere between games 25 and 82 and end up looking like the type of situation that lebron james could foresee for himself. harrington would not be a part of that and the longer he remains on the roster the harder that agenda is to fulfill. Scores at the expense of the offense? ? There is no offense without Al. Some games they would have scored in the seventies. yes...at the expense of the offense. that's why he needs to be traded. why don't you just admit you like harrington and what he brings. i won't hold that fondness against you, however misplaced. his style of play is not conducive to d'antoni's offense, which is based on moving the ball, neither is robinson's. nor crawford's. nor randolph's. these players don't believe in ball movement that creates opportunity FOR OTHERS. harrington said his goal was to make five assists a game. the other requirement is that the point guard gets 11 assists per game. you can't stand duhon because he can't play defense and he is nowhere near the level of player that nash is offensively. i understand but at last he has the mindset to do so. the others i listed don't have that mindset and they can't be changed or persuaded. so we aren't talking about point guards here. we're talking about the other positions not moving the ball. |
|
|
|
Post by irish2u2 on Dec 4, 2009 23:30:14 GMT -5
DK
Just so we are clear on this I like Harrington too. I think the labels hung on him are more or less undeserved except maybe for knucklehead ones he earns for hanging on rims. ; ) We count assists as MADE baskets. A lot of times the Knicks are such lousy shooters a lot of well intentioned passes are wasted including some by Harrington.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatgates on Dec 5, 2009 15:58:17 GMT -5
Scores at the expense of the offense? ? There is no offense without Al. Some games they would have scored in the seventies. Scores at the expense of the offense? ? There is no offense without Al. Some games they would have scored in the seventies. yes...at the expense of the offense. that's why he needs to be traded. why don't you just admit you like harrington and what he brings. i won't hold that fondness against you, however misplaced. his style of play is not conducive to d'antoni's offense, which is based on moving the ball, neither is robinson's. nor crawford's. nor randolph's. these players don't believe in ball movement that creates opportunity FOR OTHERS. harrington said his goal was to make five assists a game. the other requirement is that the point guard gets 11 assists per game. you can't stand duhon because he can't play defense and he is nowhere near the level of player that nash is offensively. i understand but at last he has the mindset to do so. the others i listed don't have that mindset and they can't be changed or persuaded. so we aren't talking about point guards here. we're talking about the other positions not moving the ball.[/quote] At some point on the NBA level, no matter the offense, someone has to be able to make a basket when covered. Al can do that. So can nate, but he is impossible to take. You can put together a squad of gallos, chandlers, and duhons and you will end up with a bunch of phony runners as they can't consistently create makeable shots for themselves. This makes you totally dependent on Mike's offense. I love a bunch of what he does but against good teams, particularly late when defenses lock in, SOME ONE will have to make a play. Unfortunately for us that is AL. So yes I appreciate what he does offensively, even if I hate some of the shots he takes. I also appreciate that he always tries hard, unlike nate or gallo. It seems Mike is drawn toward the harder workers and Al is near the tops on the knicks, right behind Dave and about even with larry, the awful duhon, the criminally weak jared, and TD.
BTW i can't stand duhon because he is awful and delusional. not only is he no where near the level of nash; he's no where the level of monte towe, katie hammon, or larry fine. And the excuse that he has the "mindset" is lafffffffable. So do the van gundy brothers; suit one of them up. |
|
|
|
Post by dk7th on Dec 5, 2009 17:03:29 GMT -5
harrington is not working hard when he chucks up a shot early in a possession. that's not playing smart either. the guy has played in the nba for 11 seasons and frankly he lacks savvy-- he makes poor decisions most of the time. and when he's bricking he doesn't do anything else well enough to compensate: just like robinson. in fact he's only effective when he's getting to the line 7-8 times a game, as pointed out by ironman last season. but even if he gets to the line, it's all about scoring for him, never facilitating. again i ask you, gates: what's up with his goal of getting 5 assists per game? you know his assist average? 1.4 assists per game. if d'antoni's offense is predicated on ball movement then you should see more assists from guys who can actually drive.
you just compared harrington favorably to chandler and gallinari and duhon and said he is better in terms of creating a shot for himself in crunch time. i agree that he is capable and that this is an important asset-- but, as you said, IN CRUNCH TIME. what about the other 44 minutes of the goddamned game? what does he do to mesh and promote teamwork?
as far as always trying hard, i don't agree. trying hard would not mean chucking. you said he takes bad shots. bad shots like shooting a three pointer with 20 seconds on the clock? right. so that means he isn't working that hard.
this leads to another point. i was very impressed by what he did yesterday against atlanta in the first half anyway. it showed that when he wants to he can be a dominant player. when he wants to. why doesn't he want to though? i got the impression that both he and duhon play hard when they want to and basically take plays off or games off.
duhon played like the duhon we saw at the first half of last season. if we can get that duhon for the rest of this season you should be happy. but we probably won't. maybe he can only play well against older slower pgs in which case his effectiveness is quite limited.
mindset is important, gates. if you're mindset is to create at the expense of the entire offense cohering then you are likely to be traded eventually, unless it's golden state. oh wait-- not even golden state could stand either harrington or crawford.
rhetorical question for you: can you imagine harrington on boston or san antonio?
|
|
|
|
Post by ironman95 on Dec 5, 2009 19:22:50 GMT -5
Al Harrington on the Celtics or Spurs would be on the bench. At best he would get Eddie House minutes. Al can score, for sure, but at the expense sometimes of cohesion, once he gets the ball, I think all he sees is the basket and his man. In the game he scored 41 points, as I have previously pointed out, he lost the game by not hitting his foul shots(9 for 13) is not good enough. So I want to amend my evaluation of Harrington to say that to be effective he has to get to the foul line(then he's playing his game as effectively as he can) and he also has to hit those foul shots 75% of the time. It's still not playing a team-type of b-ball, but I think it is the best that he can do. Would I trade him for Tyrus Thomas and Snacks? No way! They're throwing snacks in to match salaries, but no I say! If I were Chicago and really wanted Harrington, it would have to be a sign and trade, so I don't lose him at the end of the year. The Bulls actually have 4 point guards, maybe even 5 depending on whom you count. Unfortunately, Hinrich's contract is way over the top, or I would take him and Thomas for Harrington. If we deal with the Bulls, I'd want one of their cheap point guards, Pargo or Hunter, just for this year. Neither one is a very good facilitator, but might be of some use. I'd also want their #1 draft pick. Thomas is only 6'9", so the question becomes, is he better than David Lee? At some things yes, but overall, I would have to say no. I think considering Thomas is barking up the wrong tree. Not what the Knicks need. Given time Jordan Hill may prove better than Tyrus Thomas anyway, and he's a lot cheaper.
|
|
|
|
Post by whensly on Dec 5, 2009 20:39:56 GMT -5
when has a bad rumor and a walsh move ever gone together in knicksland?
NEVER..
Ty Thomas for Harrington ain't happnin.
|
|
|
|
Post by whensly on Dec 5, 2009 20:44:33 GMT -5
Next week look for a Harrington and Chandler for Drew Gooden and a pick rumor.
I don't even know where gooden plays these days or how much he makes but every year there seems to b e a gooden rumor
wedged in.
My uneducated guess is that Walsh has been futiily trying to make a deal with the Jazz to return our lotto pick.
|
|
|
|
Post by ReneNYG1 on Dec 6, 2009 3:06:01 GMT -5
Coming off a game he practically won himself Al has value and he wants to stay,I would trade him with a wlink that he can come back at a reasonable price for 2010,I would want to move jeffries,Thomas at worst is good trade bait.
|
|
|
|
Post by daglazer on Dec 6, 2009 10:10:03 GMT -5
Apparently it is the Knicks who are balking and it is the Bulls who approached the Knicks about the trade.
|
|
|
|
Post by kgooglog on Dec 7, 2009 10:13:46 GMT -5
We could have had Ty Thomas in the off-season by extending him an offer sheet, and his price would have been 50% less than resigning David Lee, even at the discount Donnie Walsh re-upped him at.
There is only one reason to get Ty now, and that is for Blue Whale or Jeffries. Since those salaried do not even begin to match up, I would put more stock in Mike James coming over here for Jared Jeffries. That's a trade that makes 100% sense for both teams.
I have to admit that getting "Snacks" back would be a legendary move by NY. The point we have to look at is payroll. The Knicks are stinking it up this year and Ty Thomas may actually have a great season on our pourous squad, and since he is unrestricted next year, we may not be able to resign him. Then again, is Harrington even in Walsh's plans next year?
|
|
|
|
Post by whensly on Dec 7, 2009 14:07:54 GMT -5
kenny my friend think about this one.
a. walsh's trades are never leaked (especially to NY beatwriters)
b. we have a team of reclamation projects, of great potential never met via Zeke and some walsh.
why would we want another underachieving poster boy for NO I CAN"T?
look at our roster...
Darko..supposed to be the next kareem
Curry..Shaq 2...NOT
Jeffries. great in college, modestly ok in the pros, good 9th man
Gallo, jury is still out
NAte..amazing talent never grew up
Chandler..flash's of brilliance but plays like a 2nd round pick
Hill..we have no idea what he will blossom into or will he just rot on the bench?
how many more question marks and reclamation projects gone bad do we need?
I'd say none.
peace
|
|
|
|
Post by whensly on Dec 7, 2009 16:32:48 GMT -5
ps; as you'll all read today walsh has flat out denied this trade rumor
and that he is trying to move harrington.
not that he would not move harrington for something good, (lotto pick) but they guy has been leading us to wins
which as we all know keeps the stink-off and the ship from sinking.
Also have heard through friends that work at MSG that Harrington is well liked and respected
in the lockeroom and by management...meaning despite his shortcomings, and sometimes goofiness
he's been a standup guy, and articulate man who keeps saying the same thing.."I want to be a knick",
that's a mantra we want all NBA and players throughout the world to be repeating. It has to start somewhere,
thanks AL.
|
|
? There is no offense without Al. Some games they would have scored in the seventies.
