<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Knicks 2007 Report Card (A to Z): Stephon Marbury</title>
	<atom:link href="http://KnickerBlogger.Net/knicks-2007-report-card-a-to-z-stephon-marbury/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://KnickerBlogger.Net/knicks-2007-report-card-a-to-z-stephon-marbury/</link>
	<description>The NBA&#039;s indispensible, premier analytical blog.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 04:51:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Geoff</title>
		<link>http://KnickerBlogger.Net/knicks-2007-report-card-a-to-z-stephon-marbury/#comment-120190</link>
		<dc:creator>Geoff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2007 01:53:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.knickerblogger.net/2007/08/06/knicks-2007-report-card-a-to-z-stephon-marbury/#comment-120190</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dont forget that at times steph was a great shooter in the clutch]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dont forget that at times steph was a great shooter in the clutch</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ben B</title>
		<link>http://KnickerBlogger.Net/knicks-2007-report-card-a-to-z-stephon-marbury/#comment-119841</link>
		<dc:creator>ben B</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2007 01:55:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.knickerblogger.net/2007/08/06/knicks-2007-report-card-a-to-z-stephon-marbury/#comment-119841</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[josh i kno u said it a while ago, but lee is CURRENTLY startin material on a finals team. look at cleveland for example. if i was them i&#039;d start lee over gooden, or at very least have him play more at the power forward. i&#039;d have him start on the bulls. i&#039;d have him start on the new celtics. i mite not hav him start on suns or dallas or them, but he would play alot]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>josh i kno u said it a while ago, but lee is CURRENTLY startin material on a finals team. look at cleveland for example. if i was them i&#8217;d start lee over gooden, or at very least have him play more at the power forward. i&#8217;d have him start on the bulls. i&#8217;d have him start on the new celtics. i mite not hav him start on suns or dallas or them, but he would play alot</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: retropkid</title>
		<link>http://KnickerBlogger.Net/knicks-2007-report-card-a-to-z-stephon-marbury/#comment-118843</link>
		<dc:creator>retropkid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2007 13:46:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.knickerblogger.net/2007/08/06/knicks-2007-report-card-a-to-z-stephon-marbury/#comment-118843</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bottom line:  Starbury doesn&#039;t win.  Ask yourself why that is....make all the excuses, do all the evaluation you want...but there is no evidence he can take his team to the top, or even near it.  Case closed.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bottom line:  Starbury doesn&#8217;t win.  Ask yourself why that is&#8230;.make all the excuses, do all the evaluation you want&#8230;but there is no evidence he can take his team to the top, or even near it.  Case closed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jon abbey</title>
		<link>http://KnickerBlogger.Net/knicks-2007-report-card-a-to-z-stephon-marbury/#comment-115854</link>
		<dc:creator>jon abbey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2007 04:12:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.knickerblogger.net/2007/08/06/knicks-2007-report-card-a-to-z-stephon-marbury/#comment-115854</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Steve Francis was an All-Star in 2006 in the same way that Tom Chambers was an All-Star in 2006.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Steve Francis was an All-Star in 2006 in the same way that Tom Chambers was an All-Star in 2006.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: thefatkid</title>
		<link>http://KnickerBlogger.Net/knicks-2007-report-card-a-to-z-stephon-marbury/#comment-115835</link>
		<dc:creator>thefatkid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2007 03:35:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.knickerblogger.net/2007/08/06/knicks-2007-report-card-a-to-z-stephon-marbury/#comment-115835</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Francis trade really wasn&#039;t a bad deal.  The Knicks gave up an expiring contract and Trevor Ariza for an All-Star.  That&#039;s a worthwhile gamble on any level, even if you think Ariza is a future All-Star (which he clearly never has been/will be).  

The McDyess deal made no sense because it left the Knicks with no center and meant acquiring a chronically injured player.  And I don&#039;t even need to go into the Ewing deal, that was just horrible.

But the Francis deal and the Marbury deal before it were both good trades.  You&#039;re talking about dealing a bunch of junk for All-Star guys.  Realize that when the Marbury trade went down, Knick fans were saying it was terrible because Maciej Lampe was going to be a spectacular player.  Likewise, we heard the same thing with the Francis deal.  And Lampe is somewhere in outer Mongolia now while Ariza is a minor role player.

The Francis trade led to acquiring Randolph for the godawful Channing Frye and what was left of Francis&#039; contract.  Without that deal, the Knicks are stuck with Frye at PF.  And for what benefit?  To save Cablevision a few pennies?  Please.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Francis trade really wasn&#8217;t a bad deal.  The Knicks gave up an expiring contract and Trevor Ariza for an All-Star.  That&#8217;s a worthwhile gamble on any level, even if you think Ariza is a future All-Star (which he clearly never has been/will be).  </p>
<p>The McDyess deal made no sense because it left the Knicks with no center and meant acquiring a chronically injured player.  And I don&#8217;t even need to go into the Ewing deal, that was just horrible.</p>
<p>But the Francis deal and the Marbury deal before it were both good trades.  You&#8217;re talking about dealing a bunch of junk for All-Star guys.  Realize that when the Marbury trade went down, Knick fans were saying it was terrible because Maciej Lampe was going to be a spectacular player.  Likewise, we heard the same thing with the Francis deal.  And Lampe is somewhere in outer Mongolia now while Ariza is a minor role player.</p>
<p>The Francis trade led to acquiring Randolph for the godawful Channing Frye and what was left of Francis&#8217; contract.  Without that deal, the Knicks are stuck with Frye at PF.  And for what benefit?  To save Cablevision a few pennies?  Please.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bernard King</title>
		<link>http://KnickerBlogger.Net/knicks-2007-report-card-a-to-z-stephon-marbury/#comment-115757</link>
		<dc:creator>Bernard King</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2007 22:59:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.knickerblogger.net/2007/08/06/knicks-2007-report-card-a-to-z-stephon-marbury/#comment-115757</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Frank, I dont disagree with saying it wasnt a good trade. Im just saying you need to be careful when you make grand statements like &quot;one of the worst trades ever&quot;.  Ive been a die hard Knick fan since 1975 and let me tell you, we have had some doozies.

Now for sure, Phoenix&#039; goal was to dump a bad contract and use the cap space to get better.  they did that.  So from that standpoint its a bad deal because Steph didnt take us to the next level.  

But while its a deal you can certainly criticize and say &quot;wasnt a good deal&quot; lets look at the deals in Knicks history that were truly the &quot;worst deals ever&quot; (anyone remember Scotty Stirling?).

In recent memory though:

1.  You could argue the deal for McDyess was one of the worst ever.  Marcus Camby nd a number one pick (Nene Hilario)?  My god.

2.  Steve Francis trade.  Completely indefensible on any level.  Just no rhyme or reason for it.  Most damaging to me is that by trading Ariza, you needed to draft Balkman (fine) but probably gave up Rajon Rondo who could truly be a PG of the future and would fit in great with the Knicks.  Way more upside than Collins IMO.

3.  Ewing trade.  Beginning of the cap decimation.  You let Ewing retire a Knick and retire his contract and the Knicks could have had tons of flexibility.  They panicked and it ended up killing the team for the next 10 years (or so).

As far as WAY more damaging idiotic deals of the past go:

1.  How about trading the 5th pick in the 1987 draft to Seattle for (I think Juwan Oldham).  Remember Juwan Oldham? Or maybe it was Gerald Henderson.  Yeah, that pick was Scottie Pippen.  still think trading for Marbury was the worst deal ever?  even more hilarious is that Seattle traded the pick to the Bulls for Olden Polynice (and then drafted Derrick Mckey who was pretty good with Reggie Miller still on the board).  

2.  Stirling also made a brilliant trade sending Darrell Walker to Denver for the 8th pick in the 1987 draft (good).  Then the Knicks inexplicably traded that pick to Pheonix (I forget for what, but it wasnt much).  Pheonix traded that pick to Chicago and the Chicago used that pick to draft Olden Polynice and then send him to Seattle for Pippen.  Who was still on that board?  Yep, Reggie Miller.

We got Mark Jackson in the 17th round that year.

So basically, if we had a competent GM, our squad would have looked like this:

C - Ewing
PF - Oakley
SF - Pippen
SG - Reggie Miller
PG - Mark Jackson

I think we may have contended for a championship or 3 with that squad.

Lets not even consider putting the Marbury deal in that category of incompetence.  Scotty Stirling deserves his own special page in Knick GM incompetence history.

I will say this though:  if you are going to destroy your cap space for a player it better be a guy that can take you to the next level. As much as I like and admire Marbury, he hasnt done it.  So lets all agree it wasnt a good trade.  

But it all started with the Ewing deal and devolved from there.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Frank, I dont disagree with saying it wasnt a good trade. Im just saying you need to be careful when you make grand statements like &#8220;one of the worst trades ever&#8221;.  Ive been a die hard Knick fan since 1975 and let me tell you, we have had some doozies.</p>
<p>Now for sure, Phoenix&#8217; goal was to dump a bad contract and use the cap space to get better.  they did that.  So from that standpoint its a bad deal because Steph didnt take us to the next level.  </p>
<p>But while its a deal you can certainly criticize and say &#8220;wasnt a good deal&#8221; lets look at the deals in Knicks history that were truly the &#8220;worst deals ever&#8221; (anyone remember Scotty Stirling?).</p>
<p>In recent memory though:</p>
<p>1.  You could argue the deal for McDyess was one of the worst ever.  Marcus Camby nd a number one pick (Nene Hilario)?  My god.</p>
<p>2.  Steve Francis trade.  Completely indefensible on any level.  Just no rhyme or reason for it.  Most damaging to me is that by trading Ariza, you needed to draft Balkman (fine) but probably gave up Rajon Rondo who could truly be a PG of the future and would fit in great with the Knicks.  Way more upside than Collins IMO.</p>
<p>3.  Ewing trade.  Beginning of the cap decimation.  You let Ewing retire a Knick and retire his contract and the Knicks could have had tons of flexibility.  They panicked and it ended up killing the team for the next 10 years (or so).</p>
<p>As far as WAY more damaging idiotic deals of the past go:</p>
<p>1.  How about trading the 5th pick in the 1987 draft to Seattle for (I think Juwan Oldham).  Remember Juwan Oldham? Or maybe it was Gerald Henderson.  Yeah, that pick was Scottie Pippen.  still think trading for Marbury was the worst deal ever?  even more hilarious is that Seattle traded the pick to the Bulls for Olden Polynice (and then drafted Derrick Mckey who was pretty good with Reggie Miller still on the board).  </p>
<p>2.  Stirling also made a brilliant trade sending Darrell Walker to Denver for the 8th pick in the 1987 draft (good).  Then the Knicks inexplicably traded that pick to Pheonix (I forget for what, but it wasnt much).  Pheonix traded that pick to Chicago and the Chicago used that pick to draft Olden Polynice and then send him to Seattle for Pippen.  Who was still on that board?  Yep, Reggie Miller.</p>
<p>We got Mark Jackson in the 17th round that year.</p>
<p>So basically, if we had a competent GM, our squad would have looked like this:</p>
<p>C &#8211; Ewing<br />
PF &#8211; Oakley<br />
SF &#8211; Pippen<br />
SG &#8211; Reggie Miller<br />
PG &#8211; Mark Jackson</p>
<p>I think we may have contended for a championship or 3 with that squad.</p>
<p>Lets not even consider putting the Marbury deal in that category of incompetence.  Scotty Stirling deserves his own special page in Knick GM incompetence history.</p>
<p>I will say this though:  if you are going to destroy your cap space for a player it better be a guy that can take you to the next level. As much as I like and admire Marbury, he hasnt done it.  So lets all agree it wasnt a good trade.  </p>
<p>But it all started with the Ewing deal and devolved from there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin</title>
		<link>http://KnickerBlogger.Net/knicks-2007-report-card-a-to-z-stephon-marbury/#comment-115664</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2007 16:47:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.knickerblogger.net/2007/08/06/knicks-2007-report-card-a-to-z-stephon-marbury/#comment-115664</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bernard King, 

A not so minor point with regard to the Marbury trade - the Knicks gave up two #1s.  The first turned into Kirk Snyder (but would have been a higer pick if the Knicks didn&#039;t make trade) and the second is protected through 2009 and then unprotected in 2010 (IIRC).

I still agree that its not the worst trade in Knick history.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bernard King, </p>
<p>A not so minor point with regard to the Marbury trade &#8211; the Knicks gave up two #1s.  The first turned into Kirk Snyder (but would have been a higer pick if the Knicks didn&#8217;t make trade) and the second is protected through 2009 and then unprotected in 2010 (IIRC).</p>
<p>I still agree that its not the worst trade in Knick history.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh</title>
		<link>http://KnickerBlogger.Net/knicks-2007-report-card-a-to-z-stephon-marbury/#comment-115521</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:21:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.knickerblogger.net/2007/08/06/knicks-2007-report-card-a-to-z-stephon-marbury/#comment-115521</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you want to talk worst deals--not just financially speaking or in terms of talent, but just trade for trades sake--you HAVE to mention the Van-Horn, Sprewell did. Nothing could have taken the &#039;knicks&#039; out of the knicks more.

David Lee is the &#039;knicks&#039;. Balkman is the &#039;knicks.&#039; They have that intangible allure because everyone loves them, and that&#039;s something important. When they go out and play, they play hard, and fans notice this and like it. it feeds off each other. If Lee shaved his head, worked the fuck out in the weight room, he&#039;s be starting material on ANY championship-seeking team.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you want to talk worst deals&#8211;not just financially speaking or in terms of talent, but just trade for trades sake&#8211;you HAVE to mention the Van-Horn, Sprewell did. Nothing could have taken the &#8216;knicks&#8217; out of the knicks more.</p>
<p>David Lee is the &#8216;knicks&#8217;. Balkman is the &#8216;knicks.&#8217; They have that intangible allure because everyone loves them, and that&#8217;s something important. When they go out and play, they play hard, and fans notice this and like it. it feeds off each other. If Lee shaved his head, worked the fuck out in the weight room, he&#8217;s be starting material on ANY championship-seeking team.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike C</title>
		<link>http://KnickerBlogger.Net/knicks-2007-report-card-a-to-z-stephon-marbury/#comment-115485</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike C</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2007 07:09:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.knickerblogger.net/2007/08/06/knicks-2007-report-card-a-to-z-stephon-marbury/#comment-115485</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m gonna say this, because i have a feeling someone else i gonna say it, I said an exponentially better team, not an exponentially better record (which is impossible unless they won 9 or less games the season before)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m gonna say this, because i have a feeling someone else i gonna say it, I said an exponentially better team, not an exponentially better record (which is impossible unless they won 9 or less games the season before)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike C</title>
		<link>http://KnickerBlogger.Net/knicks-2007-report-card-a-to-z-stephon-marbury/#comment-115482</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike C</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2007 06:49:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.knickerblogger.net/2007/08/06/knicks-2007-report-card-a-to-z-stephon-marbury/#comment-115482</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[yes, i do know what exponentially means. i don&#039;t remember NJ being very good before/during Marbury and after they got rid of him i think they made it to the finals, twice if I&#039;m not mistaken, the T&#039;wolves  with Marbury were an exciting young team and thats about it, and after Marbury left KG became the monster everyone was waiting for him to be and they were spoken of in the same breath as the Kings, the Spurs etc. Phoenix had Marbury for a hot minute and soon aftetr getting rid of him they became the team we see today. I&#039;m not saying its because of Marbury (i didn&#039;t offer a single stat) I was just pointing out that it was kinda funny is all. 

I&#039;ll concede that it was maybe just an exponent of 2, and I&#039;ll admit that I&#039;m wrong if you can prove that any of these teams were better with Marbury on them, than after he left.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>yes, i do know what exponentially means. i don&#8217;t remember NJ being very good before/during Marbury and after they got rid of him i think they made it to the finals, twice if I&#8217;m not mistaken, the T&#8217;wolves  with Marbury were an exciting young team and thats about it, and after Marbury left KG became the monster everyone was waiting for him to be and they were spoken of in the same breath as the Kings, the Spurs etc. Phoenix had Marbury for a hot minute and soon aftetr getting rid of him they became the team we see today. I&#8217;m not saying its because of Marbury (i didn&#8217;t offer a single stat) I was just pointing out that it was kinda funny is all. </p>
<p>I&#8217;ll concede that it was maybe just an exponent of 2, and I&#8217;ll admit that I&#8217;m wrong if you can prove that any of these teams were better with Marbury on them, than after he left.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
