More realistic would be

pg marbury 34 robinson 14 mardy filling in against big points like kidd. cric from la

sg crawford 32-36 balkman 8-16 more against big 2s robinson playing minutes against smaller twos. nichols getting wrap up time only until later in season HE is a second round rookie!!

sf q 28 to ease back stress, balkman 12 to 20,
jeffries to fill in if balkman in as a 2, chandler to get time at 3 and 4 over season as fillin when first 8 in foul trouble or if injury ensues

pf randolf 32 lee 16 chandler as fillin if injury
or foul trouble, jeffries can play here if weight up, morris in emergency
c curry 32 lee 12 morris 4

that creates a basic 9 man rotation
mar 34
cr 34
q 28
z-r 32
cur 32
lee 28
balk 20-28}minute distribution depends on matchups
n8 14-28}
jeffries/morris 4-8 depending who is playing better

might seem to be ok to go with 8 and up lee’s minutes, however when you do actual substitutions, need a 4 to 10 minute guy for 4/5 as lee can only sub for one front courter at a time.

If collins shows well, could give him some marbury minutes in some games to reduce stress on marbury’s knees

point-mardy collins for 20 min, nate for 20
SG-crawford for 20, nichols for 20
SF-balkman for 30, lee for 10
PF Z.Randolf for 20, lee for 20
C curry for 30, randolf for 10

i think thats a powerful lineup.
once marbury jeffries and james get over thier shitty contracts we will have money to maybe get a good point, and we could trade away people like nate and crawford, who both suk. i think the lineup i said could be a 500 team or so, and once our young talent of balkman lee nichols collins and morris-who wont play much this season- will be even better. we could even get a good free agent now that we would be finally under the salary cap. we could also trade away curry and randolf, which i’m all for.

One could easily argue Jason Kidd was statistically the best basketball player in the league last year. He averaged eight rebounds per game as a point guard, which is ridiculous. He is a great defender. Put him on the Lakers instead of Andrew Bynum, who is also on the list of players not as good as Samuel Dalembert (yet anyway), and you have a team that is legitimately capable of winning an NBA title. I wouldn’t say that team is better than the Spurs, Suns, and Mavericks, but they might be as good, and they would be incredibly exciting to watch.

The Lakers with Kidd would have the most productive guard tandem, by an enormous margin, in the NBA. You would have a near superstar in Lamar Odom at the PF. And you would have a very capable and productive complementary player in Luke Walton at the small forward. If you can get average production from Brown, Evans, Turiaf etc in the frontcourt, and from Vujacic on the wing, which is more or less what they all offered last year, that is a very dangerous team.

It’s not surprising to me that Kobe and Phil are pissed. This is a team that actually is a Bynum trade away from being a legit contender, and they won’t do it because of money and the possible emergence of Bynum, which is probably two years away if it happens at all.

Bynum will be only be 20 this year in his second season. It took Kobe four years to reach his potential, and that was as a wing player. It’s difficult to imagine Bynum being dominant, and if he gets there 3-5 years down the line, then you are trying to win the an aging Kobe.

If you care at all about winning championships you have to make that trade. And it certainly does seem like the Buss’ don’t care, or care more about the bottom line.

Los Angeles Times -
Kobe Bryant has a supporter for his vendetta with Lakers management, and it comes from an unlikely source, The Los Angeles Times is reporting.

Head coach Phil Jackson made his views clear this week in a series of interviews that, in subtler tones, were just as indelibly damaging as Bryant’s tagging spree of several months ago.

Like Bryant, Jackson said that a member of the Buss family misled him.

“We were promised by Jim Buss we’d have big changes,” he told Petros Papadakis and Matt Smith on their KLAC radio show. “We’ve yet to see that. We’re still looking for that.”

Like Bryant, Jackson intimated that Andrew Bynum might be more valuable as trade bait.

“There’s incredible pressure for that kid to step up and produce this year,” he told the radio hosts, later adding, “He hasn’t had the kind of success that generates the kind of press he’s had.”

Finally, like Bryant, Jackson talked about the need for the Lakers to repair the relationship torn apart by Bryant.

“I think actions are going to have to speak louder than words…” he told The Times’ Mark Heisler. “It’s going to take some mending and other people in this organization have to be part of it, too.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/sports/basketball/07marbury.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fM%2fMarbury%2c%20Stephon&oref=slogin

MAKE THE SEASON START SOON, PLEASE!

Then I realized we’re still left with the “force” part of force-fed, which would seem to be the more important part. The Knicks offense seemed entirely too predictable and static last season. I think “force” is a pretty good word to describe the Knicks trying to get Curry the ball.

I think one of the reasons we all love Lee and Balkman so much is that the Knicks’ game plan last season basically implied letting the other team score almost at will; then on the other side of the court concentrating so hard on getting Curry the ball that if they couldn’t or he got the ball in a position where he couldn’t score/ was effectively defended/ double+ teamed, there was no offensive plan left. Judging from Isiah and Curry’s rips at the team’s jump shooting the intention of the plan was for Curry to kick it out and get guys wide open jumpers. This makes a lot of sense, but I see some obvious problems with the plan. 1. There were apparently no jump shooters last season, yet the only ones brought in were Randolph and Nichols. Maybe a healthy roster plus these additions will be enough? 2. Curry has shown no ability to pass over the last 6 seasons. 3. No one moves away from the ball much except for Lee and Balkman. It’s hard to get open for Curry to pass to you if you stand in one place, hoping the defense will forget about you is probably not enough.

Anyway, I think we all love Lee and Balkman because they were the only break we got from this flawed plan. The two were basically the only Knicks who received some minutes and had both the effort and skill to be effective defenders. They moved away from the ball to get themselves in a position to score. Maybe it resulted from their inability to hit jumpers (although I remember someone posting Lee’s numbers on jumpers from last year and his rookie year which showed that he was not only far less effective on jumpers as a sophmore, but also took far fewer of his shots in the form of jumpers) but it seemed to work.

Anyway, I didn’t even check what context this term was used in and clearly have no life.