StutterStep wrote:Do you seriously NOT think that Curry for Wallace would improve you right now?
NO! Curry is the problem. We are constantly moving pieces to help him. It is time (always has been time) for Curry to improve his deficiencies so that players like Frye, Lee and Zach can function. All those guys do at least one thing well that a PF should be able to do. Curry simply needs to improve his REBOUNDING. Then we can proceed.
This has nothing to do with trading Curry to get Ben Wallace back.
StutterStep, you're not making a lot of sense here. You talk about it being time for Curry to "improve his deficiencies," which you then specify as his rebounding. But he's never been a good rebounder. He's supposed to start being a good one NOW, in his 7th year in the league? Absurd. It just doesn't happen that way.
What's more, Curry's rebounding has not been the problem. When he plays alongside Lee he does just fine. Lee gets the rebounds and Curry scores. But when Curry plays next to Randolph he neither rebounds nor scores as well as he does when he's not next to Randolph. Lee doesn't rebound as well next to Randolph, either. Neither does Balkman.
The problem is that Curry has been unable to coexist well with Randolph. As I pointed out in a thread last night (convenient of you to miss that one!
), when Randolph has been out this year Curry has played as well as he ever did-- in fact, he's played better than his career averages.
http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic. ... 2&start=12With Randolph in, Curry has been badly sub-par.
They can't play together. Everyone knew that it would happen this way. Everyone except for IT, that is. Both of them need the offense to be run through them, neither of them play defense. A few weeks ago you exonerated Zach and wrote that Curry has simply been in the cr*pper, but you were wrong. Zach has displaced Curry's production and sapped his confidence. You're not going to be able to make a go of it with both of them on the team.
StutterStep wrote:Would you make a three way trade to facilitate Cleveland losing Larry Hughes' salary so they can get Jason Kidd... while you send Deng to New Jersey? That's the equivalent of the trade proposed. That trade does not help us.
I get your point, but your analogy stinks.
1.) Luol Deng is an excellent, very highly regarded young player. He's probably our best player. Eddy Curry is not excellent, not very highly regarded and not your best player. Lots of fans want to get rid of him, and the media has speculated that he might be traded as well. Not so with Deng.
2.) You're talking about a hypothetical trade that helps 2 of our EC rivals whereas the Memphis-NY- Chicago proposal involves only 1 other EC team besides the Knicks.
3.) If we could trade Ben Wallace in a 3-way that involved Cleveland getting Bibby and us getting a player who might be able to really help us, such as Larry Hughes, plus another cheap young player at a position of need for us-- let's say a cheap young center, someone like Cedric Simmons or Spencer Hawes-- I'll bet that a lot of Bulls fans would be just fine with that. I don't even like Hughes. Not at all. But if he could conceivably return to his pre-Cleveland, slashing ways he could be of great use to us, and Wallace's absence would free us up to play Noah, Tyrus and Gray a lot more. So Cleveland gets Bibby. So what? They might get him even without our assistance, and we're out to help ourselves.
4.) Finally, and most importantly, the Knicks are not in the position of worrying about the competition. The Knicks are terrible. They have been terrible for 2 years. Maybe we're terrible, too; maybe we're almost as bad as the Knicks. If so, then there's no reason to worry about helping us to improve. And if we're not really that bad, if we're more like the team that won 49 games last year with the same personnel, then the Knicks are so much worse than us that they don't need to be considering us their competition.
Isiah needs to do whatever he can do to save his job. He has made a bloody mess of things. Some nice individual talent, but the pieces don't fit together at ALL. Sometimes you can "lose" a trade with regard to "fair value" but "win" in the long run by matching a need and making the team's parts fit together better.
By the way, if GMs really operated by your rules then the Spurs never would have traded Scola to the Rockets.
I'm not saying that the proposed Chicago-NY-Memphis deal will happen. In fact I said that it would NOT. But not b/c NY would balk at helping a so-called "rival."