Comments on: Marbury a Signature Away From Being an Ex-Knick

By: mase

mase — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:49:01 +0000

“ok mase, you’re right, someone will TOTALLY trade for a $17 mil a year bench player…”

as if they will trade for him now?

my point was to use him as the role player he is, thats a commodity to a contender.

By: ess-dog

ess-dog — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:28:03 +0000

ok mase, you’re right, someone will TOTALLY trade for a $17 mil a year bench player…

By: Z

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:09:16 +0000

“They are not going to waive (Marbury),” a league source familiar with the situation said Monday. “That’s off the table right now. Dolan is still the rock star contrarian. Everyone is telling him this is the one he has to get rid of, the contract he has to dump, and he won’t do it. He’s still the rebel without a cause. Donnie didn’t want him at camp. Mike didn’t want him there. But he’s there.”

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-knicks092908&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

By: mase

mase — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:00:16 +0000

look ess-dog,
i would rather see my line-up of ‘chuckers’ than see Zach start, plain and simple. also, if you bring him off the bench he may be productive and thus attractive to other teams come trade deadline.

the bottom line is that winning will increase the trade value for players as opposed to losing.

By: ess-dog

ess-dog — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:44:45 +0000

Look Mase,
Fact is, if we don’t trade Randolph, we’re best off playing him as much as possible to raise his trade value as much as possible. That’s why I thought well maybe he can play center, as long as he just beats the other center down the court in D’Antoni’s offense. Plus, I would NOT like to see a lineup with Crawford, Q, AND Chandler… too many chuckers, not enough go in.
And Thomas, my plan for Mardy includes him going to a lot of matinee art-films. Maybe some nice long autumn hikes in New Jersey, or attending a lot of gallery openings while P.E.2 slides into his spot at the end of the bench.

By: mase

mase — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:20:56 +0000

“Even though I hate him and Randolph, a lineup of Duhon, Marbury, Chandler, Lee and Randolph would be small, fast and fairly athletic.”

no defense in that lineup.

Crawford is an explposive scorer but not much else. There was a moment in time under Larry Brown when Crawford looked great as a pg, what happend?

How about Duhon/Crawford, Q, Chandler, Lee at forward and play without a center?(Nate, Zach, Jeffries, Danilo off the bench.)

By: Thomas B.

Thomas B. — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:51:49 +0000

http://www.latimes.com/sports/basketball/nba/la-spw-lakersider30-2008sep30,0,7846099.story

Could the Lakers consider moving Odom? I’d like the Knicks to look into that. Would they move him and Fisher for Marbury? Salaries work, they get an expiring contract and a way to get Farmar more time, we get an experienced point, and a solid versitle guy. I’d prefer Fisher, but the Lakers will likely want the Knicks to take Radmonavic. I dont want Vlad Rad, his contract is too long.

A second option is Malik Rose and Q Rich, but why would they want that? They would insist on Lee or Chandler and a big heck no to that!

Aw nevermind.

By: Nadri-Lee

Nadri-Lee — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:49:25 +0000

there is reallly no point of trading marbury, we have to pay for the contract etheir way so i think its better to see if he improved this which he said he got much heakthier and in a better sahpe (he got under 200 for the first time after highschool). I mean lets face were gonna for him wheter he plays or he doesnt play, it dosnt matter to him. Look at Jammal Tinsley on the pacers; he sittiing at home eating a big check without even moviing a muscle. Lets keep marbury this season if he plays nice, his trade value increases which means good for us. Lets concentrate on Z-BO, the guy isbig, doesnt polay ball , and wants the ball every season he is ridulcous and we need to get rid of him if we need salary cap space to pick up someone good in the year of 2010 (lebron,Amaire,Wade,Bosh,etcc…)

Does anyone here speak Typo? This guy could use a translator.

By: QnZSnEAkeRHeAD

QnZSnEAkeRHeAD — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:28:57 +0000

there is reallly no point of trading marbury, we have to pay for the contract etheir way so i think its better to see if he improved this year which he said he got much healthier and in a better sahpe (he got under 200 for the first time after highschool). I mean lets face it were gonna for him wheter he plays or he doesnt play, it dosnt matter to him. Look at Jammal Tinsley on the pacers; he sittiing at home eating a big check without even moviing a single muscle. Lets keep marbury this season if he plays nice, his trade value increases which means good for us. Lets concentrate on Z-BO, the guy is big, doesnt play defense , and wants the ball every time they are on offense. he is ridulcous and we need to get rid of him if we need salary cap space to pick up someone good in the year of 2010 (lebron,Amaire,Wade,Bosh,etcc…) and build around.

By: QnZSnEAkeRHeAD

QnZSnEAkeRHeAD — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:27:30 +0000

there is reallly no point of trading marbury, we have to pay for the contract etheir way so i think its better to see if he improved this which he said he got much heakthier and in a better sahpe (he got under 200 for the first time after highschool). I mean lets face were gonna for him wheter he plays or he doesnt play, it dosnt matter to him. Look at Jammal Tinsley on the pacers; he sittiing at home eating a big check without even moviing a muscle. Lets keep marbury this season if he plays nice, his trade value increases which means good for us. Lets concentrate on Z-BO, the guy isbig, doesnt polay ball , and wants the ball every season he is ridulcous and we need to get rid of him if we need salary cap space to pick up someone good in the year of 2010 (lebron,Amaire,Wade,Bosh,etcc…)