Would it be better if every team Zeke traded with got worse?

richardhutnik · Post #1 » by **richardhutnik** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 3:22 pm

Over and over again, you hear, "Well ______ got better since Isiah traded with them".

Well, would it be better if every single team got WORSE? I say this is utter nonsense. How badly Isiah sucks should be evaluated based upon how the Knicks do. And the Knicks suck at this point, so Isiah, based upon this alone, should be determined to suck.

By the way, how are the Bulls doing?

- Rich

Bill Bradley · Post #2 » by **Bill Bradley** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 4:00 pm

Teams got better because they got rid of their cancers.

Those cancers then became our cancers.

I think it's sound logic, and is just one of the many arguments you can make to explain the suckitude of Isiah's trades.

Post #3 » by **NoLayupRule** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 5:46 pm

its childish to put it all on one player.

Clearly this team can compete when they are motivated, when they play as a unit. Sadly few to none of our players acquired via trade are those kind of guys, which in part was why they were available to begin with.

Players can learn to play together, to play as a team, to trust their teammates. However that wont happen if there is no leadership and no example of that kind of play from the top. Marbruy, zach and Curry all need to learn to work together or none of them ever will.

Q and Jamal along with Jeffries, lee, rose and nate seem to understand this.

Post #4 » by **Deeeez Knicks** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 6:45 pm

No matter how you look at it Isiah sucks as a GM.

But its not a coincedence that every single team we trade with gets instantly better. And not just a little better, but a lot better. Bulls, Orlando, Portland, Suns....i mean damn...

Knick 4ever · Post #5 » by **Knick 4ever** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 6:48 pm

Isiah does not know what it takes to win in this league. He wants to pile up talents instead of guys that fits a certain system.

Post #6 » by **duetta** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 7:56 pm

You know what they say, misery enjoys company!

KnicksScholar24 · Post #7 » by **KnicksScholar24** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 8:12 pm

Bill Bradley wrote:Teams got better because they got rid of their cancers.

Those cancers then became our cancers.

I think it's sound logic, and is just one of the many arguments you can make to explain the suckitude of Isiah's trades.

+1

The fact that the other team got better after dumping their "talent" on the Knicks (no other GMs really wanted these players because of their reps) does reflect on Isiah as a GM. It's not 100% relevant, but it's a factor when judging or explaining Thomas' performance/suckitude.

For instance, Randolph put up big numbers in Portland and was a somewhat efficient scorer (46% for a PF), but they are better team now because they don't have him stagnating the offense and taking shots from his teammates. Or how about getting rid of Curry. He's a weak link on the boards and on the defensive end, so him coming here and leaving the Bulls both weakened NY and strengthen Chicago. Then you factor in the draft picks/young players and cap space NY missed out on and the other team benefited from you'll see that it should completely factor in to terribleness of GM Thomas.

ilovenewyork · Post #8 » by **ilovenewyork** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 11:44 am

with all these cancers were just one big tumor

Post #9 » by **Capn'O** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 5:36 pm

Give me a break Rich. Of course it would be better. How many times now have teams we've traded with improved WITHOUT EVEN PLAYING THE PLAYERS WE TRADED BACK?

Well what does that imply? It implies that the players we're acquiring contribute to, cause even, losing environments. When an opposing GM watches a player like Zach Randolph come here and we immediately get worse and the Blazers get better do your think that GM is saying "Hmmm, how can we get our hands on that player"? NO! It makes it look like ZACH IS A CAUSE OF LOSING... which if you watch the games... it doesn't really refute that.

If the Blazers, Suns, Magic, Raptors, and even Bulls were a crap team after they traded us their overpaid vets you could at least say that it wasn't the player's fault things turned sour over there.

Magilla_Gorilla · Post #10 » by **Magilla_Gorilla** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 5:41 pm

richardhutnik wrote:
By the way, how are the Bulls doing?

- Rich

They went to the playoffs three straight years after trading Crawford (after missing the previous 6), and went 2 straight after trading Curry.

livintoolive · Post #11 » by **livintoolive** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 6:59 pm

Technically, yes. With less "good" teams in the NBA, the Knicks wouldn't look as bad. It'd be nice being the 7th worst team in the NBA then the actual worst team in the NBA.

MadGrinch · Post #12 » by **MadGrinch** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 12:22 am

all this stuff about thomas making trades and the other team gets better because of whom they sent away is pure stupidity .

the suns didn't get better when they traded marbury , they sucked for the rest of that season .(they won 28 games that season)

tim thomas leaving the bucks didn't make them any better ...nor did KVH becoming a buck make them any better ...they were equal players basically it didn't matter , Tim is still playing because he is younger by about 3-4 years and more athletic.

thomas has done 2 trades with the rockets (c-spoon and mo taylor deals), i find it hard to believe its made much of a difference.

the raptors gave the knicks a supposed cancer jalen and got davis but didn't get better , they went straight to the lottery yet again.

the suns had jalen rose on their roster last season , it didn't seem to harm them any.

the bulls won 41 games the season after curry , after winning 47 with him...yes they made the playoffs...but that was it and ultimately it was shown to be a pretty big mistake...sweets is unemployed and neither noah or tyrus thomas have shown themselves to be close to the player curry is.

the knicks sent a cancer to the blazers in steve francis and he is now a rocket , he hasn't killed them just by being on their roster...if what many posters said about Zeke's trades were true having francis should make the rockets a lotto team.

these are often the same people who think that crawford is the reason the bulls were a lotto team with him and adding the 3rd pick , the 7th pick a 2nd rounder who started ahead of the 3rd pick that season in duhon , plus they signed nocioni ...and got about 4 players in trade (othella , fwilliams and got griffin and piatkowski when they dealt mutumbo to the rockets) when all was said and done because of the crawford deal...and that was a young team and some of the remaining players showed significant improvement.

but to some it was just because of the guy(JC) was on a different squad it meant the difference between playoffs and not being in the playoffs.

how sad is all this supposed reasoning, but its been said here again and again.

people like to bend the truth or straight up lie and think if they say it enough it will be believed ...in some cases it is true .

but this shouldn't be one of them, because its so obviously false its silly.

TheBluest · Post #13 » by **TheBluest** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 12:42 am

MadGrinch wrote:all this stuff about thomas making trades and the other team gets better because of whom they sent away is pure stupidity .

the suns didn't get better when they traded marbury , they sucked for the rest of that season .(they won 28 games that season)

tim thomas leaving the bucks didn't make them any better ...nor did KVH becoming a buck make them any better ...they were equal players basically it didn't matter , Tim is still playing because he is younger by about 3-4 years and more athletic.

thomas has done 2 trades with the rockets (c-spoon and mo taylor deals), i find it hard to believe its made much of a difference.

the raptors gave the knicks a supposed cancer jalen and got davis but didn't get better , they went straight to the lottery yet again.

the suns had jalen rose on their roster last season , it didn't seem to harm them any.

the bulls won 41 games the season after curry , after winning 47 with him...yes they made the playoffs...but that was it and ultimately it was shown to be a pretty big mistake...sweets is unemployed and neither noah or tyrus thomas have shown themselves to be close to the player curry is.

the knicks sent a cancer to the blazers in steve francis and he is now a rocket , he hasn't killed them just by being on their roster...if what many posters said about Zeke's trades were true having francis should make the rockets a lotto team.

these are often the same people who think that crawford is the reason the bulls were a lotto team with him and adding the 3rd pick , the 7th pick a 2nd rounder who started ahead of the 3rd pick that season in duhon , plus they signed nocioni ...and got about 4 players in trade (othella , fwilliams and got griffin and piatkowski when they dealt mutumbo to the rockets) when all was said and done because of the crawford deal...and that was a young team and some of the remaining players showed significant improvement.

but to some it was just because of the guy(JC) was on a different squad it meant the difference between playoffs and not being in the playoffs.

how sad is all this supposed reasoning, but its been said here again and again.

people like to bend the truth or straight up lie and think if they say it enough it will be believed ...in some cases it is true .

but this shouldn't be one of them, because its so obviously false its silly.

You need to learn terms "Cap Flexibility", "Chemistry", "Philosophy", "System", and "Culture" that in of itself shoots down 99% of your post. You wasted precious moments of your life typing this up.

Post #14 » by **moocow007** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 5:09 am

Bill Bradley wrote:Teams got better because they got rid of their cancers.

Those cancers then became our cancers.

I think it's sound logic, and is just one of the many arguments you can make to explain the suckitude of Isiah's trades.

That's really not true at all.

2 of the 3 teams that traded Marbury got better because they replaced him with better players (Kidd in NJ and Nash in Phoenix)...players that would have made EVERY team better. The 3rd team, Minnesota, replaced Marbury with Terrell Brandon and have gotten nowhere as a franchise since.

In the Phoenix case there was absolutely no chance for NY to get under the cap to sign Nash so the fact that Phoenix used the Marbury deal to clear salary space to sign Nash means nothing for NY.

The NJ case had absolutely nothing to do with NY or Thomas and just shows that Marbury was traded for one of the best PG's ever in the NBA.

Post #15 » by **moocow007** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 5:10 am

TheBluest wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

You need to learn terms "Cap Flexibility", "Chemistry", "Philosophy", "System", and "Culture" that in of itself shoots down 99% of your post. You wasted precious moments of your life typing this up.

Isiah Thomas' stupid moves have no direct relation with what happened with Phoenix or NJ. That was the original point of this post and what I think he was responding to. So yes, everything you said makes perfect sense as far as judging a GM's abilities but that's not the point of the original post.

TheBluest · Post #16 » by **TheBluest** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 7:24 am

moocow007 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Isiah Thomas' stupid moves have no direct relation with what happened with Phoenix or NJ. That was the original point of this post and what I think he was responding to. So yes, everything you said makes perfect sense as far as judging a GM's abilities but that's not the point of the original post.

Well IMO The Marbury trade with Pheonix and the Francis trade with Orlando gave both those teams "Cap Flexibility" to land Steve Nash and Rashard Lewis respectively.

Obviously no one had any idea if those team would land and who'd they target but it gave them the option. Those two trades also rid those teams of two cancers, which allowed them to find "Chemistry" and a new "Culture".

The same can be said for the other teams I SAY UGH has made trades with. The Toronto trade with Jalen allowed them enough "Cap Flexibility" to go and sign FA such as Parker, Garbajosa, make the trade with Milwaukee for Ford(And give him an extension). With the additions Calangelo made Toronto was able to implement a "System" and "Philosphy" that was more conducive to his vision and Sam Mitchell's coaching style. You can go on and on and on

Jemini80 · Post #17 » by **Jemini80** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 7:26 am

Thomas one way or another will end up trading for Elton Brand for some strange reason in a sign-and-trade this summer.

Lee will probably be in the deal and we will be left with Curry-Randolph-Brand

people will call Isiah a genius, when in reality all he does is stockpile offensive talent because he is an idiot and probably never had to actually work in school because he was a "student-athlete".

can we just get Shane Battier as our GM, he is smart as hell.

Post #18 » by **Capn'O** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 3:55 pm

[quote="moocow007"][/quote]

Well, if you want to get technical, I suppose the Phoenix and Toronto deals merely showed which _style of rebuilding_ is more effective. In the Portland and Orlando deals two more blatant examples of addition by subtraction are hard to find. These teams immediately improved and then had capspace. Chicago is a more difficult and incomplete situation to analyze.

It still doesn't help our cause that none of these players we've acquired are missed by their former teams.