Knicks Morning News (2016.09.04)

  • [NYPost] New York sports rivalries: Teams change, but the passion doesn’t
    (Saturday, September 03, 2016 4:42:53 PM)

    If only it were as easy as it used to be. Back in the day, year after year, the Giants and the Dodgers would play each other 22 times a year, 11 times at the Polo Grounds in upper Manhattan and 11 times at Ebbets Field in Brooklyn, and there was little doubt about this:…

  • Liked it? Take a second to support Mike Kurylo on Patreon!

    Mike Kurylo

    Mike Kurylo is the founder and editor of KnickerBlogger.net. His book on the 2012 Knicks, "We’ll Always Have Linsanity," is on sale now. Follow him on twitter (@KnickerBlogger).

    29 thoughts to “Knicks Morning News (2016.09.04)”

    1. Im more of a social liberal than most, but in cases of rape I still call for blood, pain, and maybe loss of male anatomy. This has been very very upseting to me, that a player in my club could have engaged in group rape. That said, innocent until proven guilty, and since there will be a settlement likely coming…

      To look on a brighter side, the media outrage likely coming will almost ensure Phil doesn’t resign him. I hope.

    2. Sports Illustrated wrote a more balanced article about the case and why Rose should be motivated to settle out of court. It truly is a tricky situation because both sides appear to be lying about one thing or the other. She claims they drugged her but her own expert admits there is little to no evidence of that ever happening. He claims she let them in but the text messages show she was asleep/non-responsive for an hour. She claims the rape eventually led to a slip in her performance which ended in her employment being terminated, but we honestly have no idea of what her job was and if she her employers thought her performance was slipping before the alleged incident or not.

      I think the most important evidence is the burning coals/blisters argument. If Rose/Allen/Hampton say they saw her holding and tossing the charcoal, then they are done. There’s no way a jury can agree that anyone thought she was sober enough to consent to sex. And that makes Derrick Rose a despicable human being and I would be surprised if the Knicks and the NBA did not levy a sizeable suspension against Derrick Rose.

      I hate the “we men” comments, but I also understand them. In no way shape or form is it okay for men to assume sex will happen no matter what time a woman invites you over, but the truth is past a certain hour that is exactly what most people would expect to be happening. I think it’s in Rose’s best interest to play the “she’s lying about the drugging” piece into further discrediting the rest of her claims and it will be important to establish that she lied. Anyway you slice it, though, Rose looks bad and it is almost impossible to prove consent when intoxication is involved.

      I hope the truth is brought to light and if Rose is found liable, I want him suspended for the year.

    3. What if Rose was really drunk too? That would be his only saving grace. Don’t forget we dont know whats on Rose’s phone log, so they may have spoken.

    4. The whole Rose thing really stinks. Alas, if I rooted solely on character, I would have abandoned this team long ago. I will still hope that he plays well this year and helps this team go a long way in the playoffs. I don’t think it’s any worse than rooting for the Kobe Bryant-led Lakers, the Ray Lewis-led Ravens, the Ben Roehtlisberger-led Steelers, etc.

      I will say that even if Rose is totally innocent, I still never really was a fan of his demeanor. He always seemed sullen and aloof. It will be interesting to see how Knicks fans, his teammates and the press react to him as the season unfolds. He doesn’t have hometown hero status here like he did in Chicago.

    5. A 32-win team making a win-now trade for a scoring-oriented, no defense-playing “superstar” point guard who is coming off five consecutive injured and/or unproductive seasons AND who has a sexual assault lawsuit hanging over his head? Could this be any more Knicksy? This is like 10.0 on the Knicksy scale.

      Actually, it could be slightly more Knicksy. There’s only one year left on his contract. And D-Rose hasn’t eaten Vaseline on YouTube yet. So, I dunno, 9.7 or something.

    6. Actually, it could be slightly more Knicksy. There’s only one year left on his contract. And D-Rose hasn’t eaten Vaseline on YouTube yet. So, I dunno, 9.7 or something.

      Hmmmm..
      *puts on Sherlock Holmes had and takes a pull on the cob pipe*

      Maybe Rose was eating the charcoal, and the accuser was tossing them to him like doggy treats? Elementary, my dear Knickerblogger!

    7. We also could have traded 2 first round picks and extended him on the spot like past Knicks’ executives would have done.

    8. She claims they drugged her but her own expert admits there is little to no evidence of that ever happening.

      I mean, it’s perfectly possible that she genuinely believed this to be the case even if it wasn’t. It’s a pretty minor detail anyway. In the texts she sends the next day, which have pathetically been cited to try and argue for Rose’s innocence, she mentions burns sustained while in Rose’s presence, and while intoxicated (“my hand bubbled up from the burns I was so wasted”). The very best case scenario for Rose is he took advantage of a woman’s inebriated state of mind and pressured her into consenting to something she had previously rebuffed. That’s pretty fucking scummy, even if it isn’t technically “rape” (my personal opinion is that it was rape).

      We also could have traded 2 first round picks and extended him on the spot like past Knicks’ executives would have done.

      Grant was a first round pick last year and played better than the average rookie point guard, albeit at an advanced age. I’m almost positive Lopez could’ve brought back a first in this market. So, in terms of total value I don’t think it’s that far off of two first round picks. Jackson not taking a wait and see approach with the case is pure negligence.

    9. haha yeah I mean if you’re drunk you can’t be held liable for running someone over with your car right guys

    10. And Jerian Grant and Robin Lopez =\= 2 first round picks. Just ask Brooklyn or any team that traded away future 1sts

    11. Maybe two drunk people having sex isnt the same as one sober person taking advantage of someone under the influence?

    12. Maybe D-Rose was the one that was really raped then. I mean, who can really say.

      Geez somebody please take this conversation out back and shoot it.

    13. There’s nothing that brings out the worst in people like a professional athlete being credibly accused of a heinous crime. It’s weird.

    14. Fellas, it is a civil case, not a criminal case. The appropriate DA looked at the evidence and decided Rose committed no crime that he could reasonably get a conviction on so there is no prosecution and no criminal liability.

      No one knows what went on except the principals (and maybe they were too much out of it to properly remember).

      The most likely out come is Rose pays money with no admission of any guilt. I don’t like the whole mess more than any of you do, but that is the most likely scenario.

    15. Grant was a first round pick last year and played better than the average rookie point guard, albeit at an advanced age. I’m almost positive Lopez could’ve brought back a first in this market. So, in terms of total value I don’t think it’s that far off of two first round picks. Jackson not taking a wait and see approach with the case is pure negligence.

      I don’t think this is a fair analysis since we unloaded Calderon’s contract, and we got Holiday too. Unloading Calderon’s contract was apparently the equivalent of getting two second round picks, and you could argue that Holiday was the equivalent of a late first round pick.

    16. Bargnani trade unloaded Novak’s contract, which was worse than Calderon’s — 3 years and about $11m remaining.

    17. As a quick aside, I’ve missed some of the last couple of days and I’ve noticed some folks have had their posts moderated. I’m pretty sure it’s just an automatic thing. No one is actively moderating your posts. I believe that perhaps some of the terms involved in the rape discussion are setting off automatic moderation. When I see the posts in question, I approve them (I just approved a post by bobneptune just now), so bear with us while we get it all sorted out. No one is being actively moderated, though (I saw comments by KnickfaninNJ, Frank and I think ephus all get moderated. I assure you, none of your comments were problems).

    18. Whoever thinks what I said is rape apologism didn’t read my first post, the first one above. Not saying it’s ok/legal/ethical, I just mentioned if two people are inebriated and have sex, it is not the same as only one inebriated.

      It should really be obvious what I meant, jowles and jk.

    19. Okay.

      Also, the terms of this case are:

      Plaintiff alleges she was unconscious. There are text messages that show that Rose and one of his associates texted her; hence, they were not unconscious.

      We’re not talking about intoxication and judgment. We’re talking about consciousness.

    20. Whoever thinks what I said is rape apologism didn’t read my first post, the first one above. Not saying it’s ok/legal/ethical, I just mentioned if two people are inebriated and have sex, it is not the same as only one inebriated.

      It’s a distinction without a difference though, isn’t it? Even if Rose was plastered to the gills, he still (allegedly) initiated sex with someone who was incapable of giving consent. I don’t think Rose’s level of sobriety when the incident occurred changes a thing at all or is any kind of mitigating factor.

      I can see from your original statement that you find the incident troubling, but the idea that the situation is in any way “different” if Rose too was intoxicated just does not sound right to me. It’s not different in any meaningful way.

    21. Fine, its a distinction without a difference, which is exactly what I meant by “not saying its ok/legal/ethical.” Still, if two people are equally very intoxicated, gender shouldn’t decide who was the rapist. Facts of the case notwithstanding.

      To be clear, again, this is disturbing to me, and will inhibit my ability to root for Rose and the Knicks to some degree. The “facts” of the case are still not clear at all, and it is possible most of what is out there is fiction or exaggeration. The log and burning coal stories say a lot to me, but I’ve seen Twelve Angry Men too many times to just pass armchair decisions.

    22. Pesimists:DRose is a Monster.Burn him alive.
      Optimists:Group Sex=Unselfish=Team Player

      KNICKS REALITY: This case is a HUGE DISTRACTION from bball activities.

    23. We’re talking about consciousness

      Ive asked this already, but is there a difference between being asleep and being unconscious?

      I can see from your original statement that you find the incident troubling, but the idea that the situation is in any way “different” if Rose too was intoxicated just does not sound right to me. It’s not different in any meaningful way.

      How? I don’t get that point of view? Remember, she claimed that she was drugged. its a hazy case which is most likely why its civil and not criminal

      T

    Comments are closed.