|
|
Post by will1682 on May 10, 2009 17:36:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by irish2u2 on May 10, 2009 20:35:00 GMT -5
Didn't the Knicks make a similar promise to Gallinari last year?
Where there is smoke there is fire. ; )
My biggest concern is that Stephen Curry will get around Eddy Curry and blow up to 300lbs. ; )
|
|
|
|
Post by daglazer on May 12, 2009 12:45:54 GMT -5
AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I do NOT want Curry. He is a tweener. He is a classic college player who will be mediocre in the pros.
|
|
|
|
Post by irish2u2 on May 12, 2009 13:29:53 GMT -5
AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I do NOT want Curry. He is a tweener. He is a classic college player who will be mediocre in the pros. No really DA, let it all out and tell us how you really feel. ; ) Curry is Monta Ellis without the athleticism but he's a much better shooter and much smarter on the court. He knows how to get his shot off and he is both quick and accurate. He gets to the foul line a lot because he uses the ball fake to perfection. He can shoot off the dribble. He's a good ballhandler with good quicks who can play some combo guard like PG. He's a liability somewhat on defense because he is not tall or strong but he is smart and gets a lot of steals and deflections. Mostly Stephen Curry is the perfect fit for D'Antoni's offense. It's ironic that in a lot of ways Curry mimics Gallinari. Now looking at the draft I contend that picking Curry any higher than 7th would be a mistake. Griffin, Rubio, Harden, Thabeet, DeRozan and Hill are all better choices. I still think our draft choice ties into closely with what we will do with Lee and Nate. Perhaps the thought is not to re-sign Nate and trade him making Curry the first guard off the bench. That role would seem to fit him. Much more disturbing than the rumor we will take Curry is the one where we trade the expiring contracts of Hughes and Mobley for Tracy McGrady. It feels like forever that TMac has been damaged goods and while his contract is over in 2010 I don't see why this deal could happen. If we need a big shooting guard than try and get Harden or DeRozan or even Tyreke Evans in the draft. |
|
|
|
Post by daglazer on May 13, 2009 9:35:20 GMT -5
AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I do NOT want Curry. He is a tweener. He is a classic college player who will be mediocre in the pros. No really DA, let it all out and tell us how you really feel. ; ) Curry is Monta Ellis without the athleticism but he's a much better shooter and much smarter on the court. He knows how to get his shot off and he is both quick and accurate. He gets to the foul line a lot because he uses the ball fake to perfection. He can shoot off the dribble. He's a good ballhandler with good quicks who can play some combo guard like PG. He's a liability somewhat on defense because he is not tall or strong but he is smart and gets a lot of steals and deflections. Mostly Stephen Curry is the perfect fit for D'Antoni's offense. It's ironic that in a lot of ways Curry mimics Gallinari. Now looking at the draft I contend that picking Curry any higher than 7th would be a mistake. Griffin, Rubio, Harden, Thabeet, DeRozan and Hill are all better choices. I still think our draft choice ties into closely with what we will do with Lee and Nate. Perhaps the thought is not to re-sign Nate and trade him making Curry the first guard off the bench. That role would seem to fit him. Much more disturbing than the rumor we will take Curry is the one where we trade the expiring contracts of Hughes and Mobley for Tracy McGrady. It feels like forever that TMac has been damaged goods and while his contract is over in 2010 I don't see why this deal could happen. If we need a big shooting guard than try and get Harden or DeRozan or even Tyreke Evans in the draft. Bill, I would gladly take Evans over Curry. It seems to me that we are trying to recreate the Dallas Mavericks roster and that is not a good thing. As far as McGrady, I think that would be a good deal because it does not hurt the cap and McGrady will be motivated to play his best because it is a contract year. Also, because we do not have a pick in 2010, we want to make the playoffs because there is no upside to sucking again. |
|
|
|
Post by ironman95 on May 13, 2009 13:24:21 GMT -5
I am emphatically with DA on this, as I have stated in the past. I DO NOT want Stephon Curry. He will not be a good fit, he is not strong enough, nor tall enough, nor does he have good enough point guard skills. He is the classic "in-betweener" as DA points out. He would be a real stretch at #8. I'd much rather have Tyreke Evans @ 8, or even Ty Lawson although he is also a stretch @ 8. Evans may not be the scorer that Curry is, but he is way more athletic, 6'6", and can play either guard position quite well. He can play with or without the ball effectively, while Curry needs the ball in his hands to be effective. Defensively, there is no comparison, Evans wins by a mile, and the Knicks need to up their defense more than their offense. I hope this Curry thing is a smoke-screen to mask their true intententions of taking Evans. I don't get where anyone thinks Curry is a good fit. A good fit is someone who creates shots for others(Curry doesn't do that particularly well) or plays well without the ball, to where he can catch and shoot, like Gallinari can and even Nate. Curry doesn't do that well either. All Curry can do well is create his own jump shot, not much else. Evans can create for others or penetrate all the way to the rim, on his own. Curry can't do that. I'm going to be really bummed out if the Knicks wind up with Curry. It will be Marbury, with a better attitude, but the same skill set all over again. Not a winning combination, on an already defensively challenged team. No thank-you!!
|
|
|
|
Post by irish2u2 on May 13, 2009 16:24:16 GMT -5
Iron
I can't disagree with a lot of your conclusions except one.
Curry is a great catch and shoot scorer. He moves extremely well without the ball too. Say what you want about the other guys but Curry excels at one skill, shooting, and so far nobody we might be looking at around #8 excels at anything. The guys other than Curry all have the very dangerous trap word attached to them...upside. ; )
Take him or not doesn't really matter till the pre-draft camps. I like the pre-draft camps. ; )
|
|
|
|
Post by neilverson on May 14, 2009 12:04:53 GMT -5
You guys would take Lawson over Flynn? Where is Flynn projected?
|
|
|
|
Post by daglazer on May 15, 2009 15:03:39 GMT -5
You guys would take Lawson over Flynn? Where is Flynn projected? Yes I would. Lawson excels at several NBA skills. He has excellent speed, quickness and passing skills. He shot is average, but he is like Tony Parker in that he can get into the lane whenever he wants. IMHO, Lawson compares to Parker as a NBA point and Parker has shown himself to be a stud. |
|
|
|
Post by irish2u2 on May 15, 2009 16:22:50 GMT -5
DA You know you are going to Hell for suggesting we draft a Tarheel, right?  In today's RealGM, Stephen Curry expresses his hope he will be drafted by the Knicks. IMHO, it's a done deal. www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/59196/20090515/curry_wants_to_be_drafted_by_knicks/I'll go back to what I said earlier and that is wait and see what transpires in the pre-draft camps. Curry, when interviewed, thinks he could add a lot to the Knicks with his PG skills. Can he? I know his shooting skills fill a need but a very ordinary athlete can't play NBA SG at 6'1 no matter how skilled he might be shooting the ball. Also keep in mind the Knicks will conduct individual workouts so they will get an up close opportunity to determine if Curry is the real deal. For myself I have no horse in the race. I just want the best player possible. To go back to an earlier point about TMac it makes no sense to trade for him even with the expiring contract. He's done. He hasn't rebounded back from his microfracture surgery and now he has become a jump shooting 6'8 guard who is averaging less than 42% for the last 6 years while missing an average of 22 games a year for those 6 years and coming off his worst year since 1999. What would he bring the Knicks? Star power? Haven't we been there and done that before? McGrady, when healthy, is a very good player, an All-Star player, though he struggles when the burden of carrying the team is on him. His game is based on athleticism and when he shot well it was because he mixed up jumpers with drives to the basket and lots of dunks. He doesn't get to the basket much these days and his FG% has suffered because of it. I don't think TMac would have any effect on either making the playoffs or attracting LBJ. In fact TMac would be waving "bye" as LBJ enters the house. I said this last year. We would have made the playoffs with Sam Dalembert or Tyson handler at center. We likely would have been bounced in Round 1 but just the addition of a defensive minded center would have seriously cut that -5 point differential we averaged last year. If anything the goal should be to shore up center, draft well, do waht we have to do with Lee and Nate and then maybe make a run next year in a Conference where the bottom half of the playoff teams are average at best. Of course, I could be wrong. ; ) |
|
|
|
Post by greatgates on May 15, 2009 16:33:33 GMT -5
No really DA, let it all out and tell us how you really feel. ; ) Curry is Monta Ellis without the athleticism but he's a much better shooter and much smarter on the court. He knows how to get his shot off and he is both quick and accurate. He gets to the foul line a lot because he uses the ball fake to perfection. He can shoot off the dribble. He's a good ballhandler with good quicks who can play some combo guard like PG. He's a liability somewhat on defense because he is not tall or strong but he is smart and gets a lot of steals and deflections. Mostly Stephen Curry is the perfect fit for D'Antoni's offense. It's ironic that in a lot of ways Curry mimics Gallinari. Now looking at the draft I contend that picking Curry any higher than 7th would be a mistake. Griffin, Rubio, Harden, Thabeet, DeRozan and Hill are all better choices. I still think our draft choice ties into closely with what we will do with Lee and Nate. Perhaps the thought is not to re-sign Nate and trade him making Curry the first guard off the bench. That role would seem to fit him. Much more disturbing than the rumor we will take Curry is the one where we trade the expiring contracts of Hughes and Mobley for Tracy McGrady. It feels like forever that TMac has been damaged goods and while his contract is over in 2010 I don't see why this deal could happen. If we need a big shooting guard than try and get Harden or DeRozan or even Tyreke Evans in the draft. Bill, I would gladly take Evans over Curry. It seems to me that we are trying to recreate the Dallas Mavericks roster and that is not a good thing. As far as McGrady, I think that would be a good deal because it does not hurt the cap and McGrady will be motivated to play his best because it is a contract year. Also, because we do not have a pick in 2010, we want to make the playoffs because there is no upside to sucking again. But why would Houston want those two stiffs. |
|
|
|
Post by daglazer on May 16, 2009 10:35:46 GMT -5
Bill, I would gladly take Evans over Curry. It seems to me that we are trying to recreate the Dallas Mavericks roster and that is not a good thing. As far as McGrady, I think that would be a good deal because it does not hurt the cap and McGrady will be motivated to play his best because it is a contract year. Also, because we do not have a pick in 2010, we want to make the playoffs because there is no upside to sucking again. But why would Houston want those two stiffs. GG, the answer is money. Mobley's contract is probably insured so that they would recoup 80% of his salary and Hughes adds to Houston's defensive philosophy. McGrady is a player that they have proven is unnecessary to win. So, they save a lot of money and don't hurt their cap while improving team chemistry. Whether or not this actually happens is a big question, but I can see the logic. |
|
|
|
Post by greatgates on May 16, 2009 20:57:12 GMT -5
You guys would take Lawson over Flynn? Where is Flynn projected? I just don't see it. I don't like lawson's game at all. he's fast but thats all i see. Parker always had a bunch of "funky" moves and shots. lawson just goes right very quickly[/b][/color] |
|
|
|
Post by greatgates on May 16, 2009 21:03:26 GMT -5
DA You know you are going to Hell for suggesting we draft a Tarheel, right? In today's RealGM, Stephen Curry expresses his hope he will be drafted by the Knicks. IMHO, it's a done deal. www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/59196/20090515/curry_wants_to_be_drafted_by_knicks/I'll go back to what I said earlier and that is wait and see what transpires in the pre-draft camps. Curry, when interviewed, thinks he could add a lot to the Knicks with his PG skills. Can he? I know his shooting skills fill a need but a very ordinary athlete can't play NBA SG at 6'1 no matter how skilled he might be shooting the ball. Also keep in mind the Knicks will conduct individual workouts so they will get an up close opportunity to determine if Curry is the real deal. For myself I have no horse in the race. I just want the best player possible. To go back to an earlier point about TMac it makes no sense to trade for him even with the expiring contract. He's done. He hasn't rebounded back from his microfracture surgery and now he has become a jump shooting 6'8 guard who is averaging less than 42% for the last 6 years while missing an average of 22 games a year for those 6 years and coming off his worst year since 1999. What would he bring the Knicks? Star power? Haven't we been there and done that before? McGrady, when healthy, is a very good player, an All-Star player, though he struggles when the burden of carrying the team is on him. His game is based on athleticism and when he shot well it was because he mixed up jumpers with drives to the basket and lots of dunks. He doesn't get to the basket much these days and his FG% has suffered because of it. I don't think TMac would have any effect on either making the playoffs or attracting LBJ. In fact TMac would be waving "bye" as LBJ enters the house. I said this last year. We would have made the playoffs with Sam Dalembert or Tyson handler at center. We likely would have been bounced in Round 1 but just the addition of a defensive minded center would have seriously cut that -5 point differential we averaged last year. If anything the goal should be to shore up center, draft well, do waht we have to do with Lee and Nate and then maybe make a run next year in a Conference where the bottom half of the playoff teams are average at best. Of course, I could be wrong. ; ) |
|
|
|
Post by kgooglog on May 17, 2009 8:11:54 GMT -5
I'd like to see Donnie trade Cuttino's contract for an existing NBA pivot, not some selfish NBA player who may never play again. Like DA says, I can see only a benefit for Houston in this trade, since Hughes can play on the court and is a defensive guard.
Donnie has the chips to acquire Tyson Chandler, who I think would be perfect in the Knicks system or Samuel Dalembert, who would see plenty of play in NY. In this NBA economy, we need to go after a "Big" who may have an extra year on his deal without giving up our summer of Lebron and Bosh.
Of course, this may require Walsh to excise "Santa Player Option Clause"--if only there was a way...
|
|
