GalloFan22 wrote:
well the statement is dumb because ny can always get a rudy gay or someone like that by outbiding.
also how does benching nate on his last year(and your team gets much better) and he wont be here next year set you up for failure? its just a dumb statement.
we will always have an amare or boozer or gay or someone like that in our backpocket.
I don't think
iamworthy meant that by not playing Nate the Knicks are setting themselves up for failure, I think he meant more to the term that I used for the Knicks.....dysfunction. It's pretty relevant that the Knicks haven't escaped the drama even with Isiah out the way. The Marbury fiasco, the yo-yo free agent drama with Lee and Nate.......especially when nobody wanted them anyway.
You're attacking
iamworthy for basically stating the obvious, the Knicks aren't guaranteed a top tier free agent, so signing Gay or Boozer is basically settling for leftovers. The guys you list aren't going to put the Knicks over the hump......they're not franchise changing players no matter what you or you're fan base thinks. If the Knicks don't land Lebron or Wade (which is very likely) it'll be a total failure period.
So in essence you really didn't understand what he was getting at in the first place, it was basically pretty simple to tell the truth.