Stephen A Smith:Grunwald had bargnani forced upon him!!

s0nicm0use · Post #201 » by **s0nicm0use** » Fri Dec 6, 2013 5:21 am

Fury wrote:Lol the title of the thread makes it sound like they had Bargnani rape Grundawg

funniest thing ive read all day

rocarlos24 · Post #202 » by **rocarlos24** » Fri Dec 6, 2013 5:26 am

Man honestly Andrea is my favorite knick right now..... Real talk.......

Post #203 » by **Capn'O** » Fri Dec 6, 2013 6:45 am

Doubt there was any real chance at LMA. Maybe for 2015. But I believe the part about CAA. These clowns have too much sway here.

PrecociousNeoph · Post #204 » by **PrecociousNeoph** » Fri Dec 6, 2013 11:59 am

well i think almost every trade is to some degree unequal and if donnie walsh can convince minnesota to be the dump site to eddy curry's garbage, then certainly something like this in some form or another would not be out of the question. remember there is really no such thing as fair market value because value of a player is different for everyone. pretty much everybody was saying we had nothing appealing to denver, and as soon as the trade was approved those same people wasted no time flip-flopping and hastily changed their tune to the knicks being the victim of a mile-highway robbery (see what i did there). the ESPN peanut gallery to this day has still not explained how exactly one can overpay with no-value players. so, that.

MaseInYourFace · Post #205 » by **MaseInYourFace** » Fri Dec 6, 2013 2:03 pm

Has Stephen A even had the class and perspective to admit the BArgs pickup has been positive for Knicks so far? I know it hasn't manifested in wins but the guy is playing very well.

Post #206 » by **GONYK** » Fri Dec 6, 2013 3:09 pm

MaseInYourFace wrote:Has Stephen A even had the class and perspective to admit the BArgs pickup has been positive for Knicks so far? I know it hasn't manifested in wins but the guy is playing very well.

If we were even .500, SAS wouldn't have anything to say.

This nothing but inciting an already angry mob

seren · Post #207 » by **seren** » Fri Dec 6, 2013 3:27 pm

cgmw wrote:
[GR] wrote:The Marbury trade was in no way a disaster. Everyone praised it, including ESPN. The Knicks gave up complete trash for him. The biggest problem was trading Van Horn for Thomas, then the problems started mounting.

Listen, I'm not going to pretend like I wasn't excited at the time. But unless you spent the mid 2000s in a parallel universe devoid of Vaseline and "they scurred now," the Marbury era was the definition of disaster.

The pattern was bad then, and Bargnani is proof that it hasn't changed. You just can't keep throwing draft picks and youth at other club's unwanted/overpaid/malcontent risks. Especially when the team culture is so corrupt to begin with.

If you'd like to defend every component of every transaction since Layden, go for it. System's broke bro.

Gotta disagree. This is a hindsight situation as opposed to other trades.

Unlike Bargnani, Marbs had some winning going on. His problem was butting heads with teammates and coaches, but neither his talent nor production was in question. He became an all-star early and carried his team to playoffs in Phoenix. I don't agree that we gave up nothing for him. We certainly gave up assets that include picks, partially guaranteed contracts (Ward), expiring contracts, and even on top of that we took Hardaway's massive three year deal.

Still, I don't think the deal was as horrible as followup deals from KVH/TT deal to later on Eddy Curry deal. At the very least, we got a proven quality at the time unlike those other moves.

seren · Post #208 » by **seren** » Fri Dec 6, 2013 3:33 pm

MaseInYourFace wrote:Has Stephen A even had the class and perspective to admit the BArgs pickup has been positive for Knicks so far? I know it hasn't manifested in wins but the guy is playing very well.

If he were to say that, I think he would be wrong. 4-13 doesn't incite any positivity, at least for me.

WhyISO · Post #209 » by **WhyISO** » Fri Dec 6, 2013 3:34 pm

Michael_Scott wrote:Stephen A. makes things up.

He's usually delusional.

Help Melo & Denver robbed the Knicks.
Help ran Lin out of town.

WhyISO · Post #210 » by **WhyISO** » Fri Dec 6, 2013 3:36 pm

MaseInYourFace wrote:Has Stephen A even had the class and perspective to admit the BArgs pickup has been positive for Knicks so far? I know it hasn't manifested in wins but the guy is playing very well.

Bargs has been one of the FEW bright spots for the Knicks this season.
Stephen 'Kiss my A@@' Smith can go to hell.

MaseInYourFace · Post #211 » by **MaseInYourFace** » Fri Dec 6, 2013 3:36 pm

seren wrote:
MaseInYourFace wrote:Has Stephen A even had the class and perspective to admit the BArgs pickup has been positive for Knicks so far? I know it hasn't manifested in wins but the guy is playing very well.

If he were to say that, I think he would be wrong. 4-13 doesn't incite any positivity, at least for me.

Well Bargs has been one of the few bright spots...

seren · Post #212 » by **seren** » Fri Dec 6, 2013 3:43 pm

MaseInYourFace wrote:
Well Bargs has been one of the few bright spots...

Define bright spots. He doesn't look as horrible as advertised and overall he looked better than Amare. He still can't defend pick and roll and doesn't open up the court for anybody on the offensive end. We are mess offensively thanks to moving Melo to three to open up a spot for him bringing down Melo's efficiency as well as the overall ball movement.

I personally rather have Novak on this roster right now and go back to the lineup we had last year.

MaseInYourFace · Post #213 » by **MaseInYourFace** » Fri Dec 6, 2013 3:45 pm

seren wrote:
MaseInYourFace wrote:
Well Bargs has been one of the few bright spots...

Define bright spots. He doesn't look as horrible as advertised and overall he looked better than Amare. He still can't defend pick and roll and doesn't open up the court for anybody on the offensive end. We are mess offensively thanks to moving Melo to three to open up a spot for him bringing down Melo's efficiency as well as the overall ball movement.

I personally rather have Novak on this roster right now and go back to the lineup we had last year.

I disagree he doesn't open things up. Him drawing bigs out opens up paint. Not his fault we mostly don't take advantage of that.

He's played well, I didn't expect him to defend pick and roll well so I'm not gonna judge him on that. He's kept quite a few games close if not for him with our struggles we'd be getting blown out way more.

Post #214 » by **GONYK** » Fri Dec 6, 2013 3:49 pm

MaseInYourFace wrote:
seren wrote:
MaseInYourFace wrote:
Well Bargs has been one of the few bright spots...

Define bright spots. He doesn't look as horrible as advertised and overall he looked better than Amare. He still can't defend pick and roll and doesn't open up the court for anybody on the offensive end. We are mess offensively thanks to moving Melo to three to open up a spot for him bringing down Melo's efficiency as well as the overall ball movement.

I personally rather have Novak on this roster right now and go back to the lineup we had last year.

I disagree he doesn't open things up. Him drawing bigs out opens up paint. He's played well, I didn't expect him to defend pick and roll well so I'm not gonna judge him on that. He's kept quite a few games close if not for him with our struggles we'd be getting blown out way more.

Why would anyone expect Bargs to defend the PnR? That is setting an unreasonable expectation. Bargs is what he is.

So far, he's been a very good PnP big man and a downright excellent post defender. He has shown the offensive versatility we brought him in for. I would say he's nowhere near the top of the list of reasons why we are 4-13

seren · Post #215 » by **seren** » Fri Dec 6, 2013 3:59 pm

GONYK wrote:Why would anyone expect Bargs to defend the PnR? That is setting an unreasonable expectation. Bargs is what he is.

So far, he's been a very good PnP big man and a downright excellent post defender. He has shown the offensive versatility we brought him in for. I would say he's nowhere near the top of the list of reasons why we are 4-13

How can you get away with a center/PF who can't defend the Pick and Roll? How are you going to hide him? Certainly we couldn't find a way so far.

I don't personally blame Bargnani for his shortcomings. It is up to the coach to not start him nor give him major minutes.

seren · Post #216 » by **seren** » Fri Dec 6, 2013 4:01 pm

MaseInYourFace wrote:
I disagree he doesn't open things up. Him drawing bigs out opens up paint. Not his fault we mostly don't take advantage of that.

He's played well, I didn't expect him to defend pick and roll well so I'm not gonna judge him on that. He's kept quite a few games close if not for him with our struggles we'd be getting blown out way more.

That is really on paper. Given where he usually stays, that is on top of the floor, it is not that difficult for big men to move back and forth. They are definitely fine giving him long jumpers all day. We obviously haven't seen any open lanes for guards so far. I am sure stats would back me up on this.

Post #217 » by **GONYK** » Fri Dec 6, 2013 4:03 pm

seren wrote:
GONYK wrote:Why would anyone expect Bargs to defend the PnR? That is setting an unreasonable expectation. Bargs is what he is.

So far, he's been a very good PnP big man and a downright excellent post defender. He has shown the offensive versatility we brought him in for. I would say he's nowhere near the top of the list of reasons why we are 4-13

How can you get away with a center/PF who can't defend the Pick and Roll? How are you going to hide him? Certainly we couldn't find a way so far.

I don't personally blame Bargnani for his shortcomings. It is up to the coach to not start him nor give him major minutes.

We got what we traded for. A PnP big man who can put the ball on the floor and defend the post.

We didn't make a move for him because we expected him to become something more. We made a move for him because we needed someone to alleviate the scoring load and replace Copeland and Novak.

I think he's easily done that and then some.

god shammgod · Post #218 » by **god shammgod** » Fri Dec 6, 2013 4:05 pm

GONYK wrote:
seren wrote:
GONYK wrote:Why would anyone expect Bargs to defend the PnR? That is setting an unreasonable expectation. Bargs is what he is.

So far, he's been a very good PnP big man and a downright excellent post defender. He has shown the offensive versatility we brought him in for. I would say he's nowhere near the top of the list of reasons why we are 4-13

How can you get away with a center/PF who can't defend the Pick and Roll? How are you going to hide him? Certainly we couldn't find a way so far.

I don't personally blame Bargnani for his shortcomings. It is up to the coach to not start him nor give him major minutes.

We got what we traded for. A PnP big man who can put the ball on the floor and defend the post.

We didn't make a move for him because we expected him to become something more. We made a move for him because we needed someone to alleviate the scoring load and replace Copeland and Novak.

I think he's easily done that and then some.

i've said it a bunch of times lately but the best move would be to move him to the bench when chandler is back. it's not an indictment of him but it'll just put everyone in their right place.

a problem woody has is that he has too many bigs whose minutes are seemingly guaranteed. move bargs to the bench and you have k-mart, amare and him all expecting minutes. and you have metta who's really better at the 4.

Post #219 » by **GONYK** » Fri Dec 6, 2013 4:08 pm

god shammgod wrote:
GONYK wrote:
seren wrote:
How can you get away with a center/PF who can't defend the Pick and Roll? How are you going to hide him? Certainly we couldn't find a way so far.

I don't personally blame Bargnani for his shortcomings. It is up to the coach to not start him nor give him major minutes.

We got what we traded for. A PnP big man who can put the ball on the floor and defend the post.

We didn't make a move for him because we expected him to become something more. We made a move for him because we needed someone to alleviate the scoring load and replace Copeland and Novak.

I think he's easily done that and then some.

i've said it a bunch of times lately but the best move would be to move him to the bench when chandler is back. it's not an indictment of him but it'll just put everyone in their right place.

a problem woody has is that he has too many bigs whose minutes are seemingly guaranteed. move bargs to the bench and you have k-mart, amare and him all expecting minutes. you have metta who's really better at the 4.

Only if it means we return to the 2 PG lineup

god shammgod · Post #220 » by **god shammgod** » Fri Dec 6, 2013 4:10 pm

GONYK wrote:
god shammgod wrote:
GONYK wrote:
We got what we traded for. A PnP big man who can put the ball on the floor and defend the post.

We didn't make a move for him because we expected him to become something more. We made a move for him because we needed someone to alleviate the scoring load and replace Copeland and Novak.

I think he's easily done that and then some.

i've said it a bunch of times lately but the best move would be to move him to the bench when chandler is back. it's not an indictment of him but it'll just put everyone in their right place.

a problem woody has is that he has too many bigs whose minutes are seemingly guaranteed. move bargs to the bench and you have k-mart, amare and him all expecting minutes. you have metta who's really better at the 4.

Only if it means we return to the 2 PG lineup

that would be the whole point. that and melo at the 4.