I have written my share of Knicks articles, and they were basically all correct. This year, I have a few more fearless projections and suggestions—take that, Mr. Frasier—for fans and management, respectively.
Let's start with the projections. Last year, my projections were pretty accurate. I was tough on all of the players who ended up being terrible (see Richardson, Q.)—but for some crazy reason, I thought the Knicks could win 41 games and make the playoffs. Instead, they stumbled to 23 wins and an unlucky lottery slot.
This year, let's start off with the win total—33. Now, how can the Knicks achieve that record?
Last year was filled with an unprecedented level of drama, with a coach spending the entire year on the hot seat, a sexual harassment scandal, an unhappy "star" point guard who mysteriously left the team to have surgery, trade rumors, and various in-team scuffles.
This year, stability alone should bring the team back to its play of two years ago. Unfortunately, much of the Eastern Conference, with the exception of the Nets, has improved.
Elton Brand brings a low-post presence to Philly. Toronto has a new center, and Indiana found a new point guard. Milwaukee and Atlanta can look forward to another year of growth from their young players. Even Charlotte might improve.
The Knicks, though, are unlikely to notice any improvement from their own players. Not a single Knick has improved while in the league, which might be a sign the coaching staff was terrible. This year, Mike D'Antoni's high-octane offensive approach should increase scoring and raise morale. If that translates to more wins, then great.
Now, can the Knicks win more than 33 games? That will take a real effort to trade the trash and find new roles for others.
Jerome James and Malik Rose have no good reason to take up a spot on the bench. Jerome is on par with Carl Pavano, in terms of free-agent signings who never play.
Rose no longer has the athleticism to overcome his height limitations, so his career should be done. The Knicks release them both and find some NBDL talent or summer league players to take their spots.
Jared Jeffries, Renaldo Balkman, and Mardy Collins are all the same player, only with different heights. Renaldo is the best athlete, Jeffries is the tallest, and Collins is the best passer.
None of them can shoot, and none of them should play more than 10 minutes a game. Trade any of them, maybe for a second-round pick if possible.
Eddy Curry needs to get in shape and be removed from the game whenever he does not show effort on the boards. Send him to Tim Grover, who runs the famous A.T.T.A.C.K. training facility, to improve his quickness.
Not many teams would want to trade for Curry, but these teams might bite: Oklahoma City, Atlanta, Dallas, Minnesota, and Memphis.
Some trade ideas:
1. Eddy Curry and Quentin Richardson for Darko Milicic, Marko Jaric, and Javaris Crittenton
A deal that might make everyone happy. Darko can fit in better in New York than in Memphis, and might finally blossom into a good player. His blocks would be a welcome addition.
comments (25) write a comment »
write a new comment
4 months ago
I wanted to compliment you on your trade ideas because they all work figures wise. So many times you'll find people put together ridiculous trades that don't even come close to matching in dollars and cents. The most annoying thing is to see people putting out trade ideas like this is NBA Live 2008. I used the ESPN Trade Machine to check each one and they all worked.
Good work on that!
from 4 months ago
You could have just asked and saved yourself some time. Yes, I made sure that each trade actually worked and made sense.
from 4 months ago
It was a compliment. No need for attitude.
from 4 months ago
No attitude, just found it amusing.
4 months ago
This article reads like, a much more veracious title would have been;
"""Dear NY Knicks, please help contribute to the NBA affliction called *dead-weight Caucasoid player* Syndrome"""
Your trade suggestions 'egregiously disrespected' the skills of Randolph, Nate Robinson, Stephon Marbury, and Jamal Crawford, plus...
Garnered you some votes for 'GM Of The Year' in the KKK-League.
from 4 months ago
Those players (Randolp, Marbury, Crawford) have never been winners in the NBA, and many people will tell you that Randolph and Marbury they are team cancers. Crawford has terrible shot selection, but he should improve that this year. I never said Nate Robinson was bad, he just isn't as good as a fit on this team. I had to use contracts that worked, and his contract matched. Try to point out one trade that you think is unfair and I can argue its merits. Note that I suggested trading for players of all ethnic backgrounds. The team would be mostly black. You just like to complain.
from 4 months ago
Why is everything racial with you man?
4 months ago
Harris,
You can beat it with that Caucasoidal-Race Card, calling players "a cancer" who go out on the court and earn their contract monies. Randolph is a '20 & 10' guy. He's not motivated, when he's surrounded by sorryA$$ players who don't want to get intense, nor a coach, who shows no confidence in him, or puts lesser-skilled players above him. Nate Robinson was once allowed the rare 'starting PG' slot for the Knicks last year ---and tallied up 45 points in that game!!--- but couldn't get everyone else on the same intensity page as he was on. So, I'll take that type of 'cancer' over dead-weight Caucasoids like Szcerbiak/Redick types, any day!
And, the fact that you even put Redick in the mix ---for any productive player--- just shows the peculiar mindset you execute these articles with...I'm surprised you didn't try giving Keith Van Horn some props!
_________________________________________________________________________________
TJ,
Man. Listen. You really need to hush, with your xenophobic-stench that you execute on this site. Quit writing ridiculous-articles that diminish Black player's contributions/output, while staying "peculiarly silent" and forgiving of dead-weight Caucasoid players, and...you won't have to worry about commenting toward me, in the way that you do.
If I smell some blatant *peculiar-institutionalism* in your article's thought processes, I'm going to point it out---in ways you can't get around. Period.
from 4 months ago
The Knicks entire starting lineup, plus their coach last year was black, so I don't know how you can call it a race thing that they were bad. Zach Randolph puts up stats for himself, but gives up plenty of points on the other end, and does not involve his teammates in the game. There is a reason Portland did better with him gone. How would you explain it?
Trading for J.J. Redick has a purpose- he is a great shooter who would fit in well with the Knicks offense, and is not wanted on his current team. The other purpose of the trade was to get a backup center, and a first round draft pick.
I don't think you even know what a xenophobe is. A xenophobe is afraid of foreigners. It seems you're a xenophobe, and only look to get subpar black players more recognition. I would have love to have Paul Pierce or Tim Duncan on the team, but there is no way to get them to the Knicks.
Get real and stop making things into race issues.
4 months ago
J.J. Redick SUCKS BIG-TIME and chokes everytime he was put into an NBA game. Face it. Redick was a great shooter "IN COLLEGE" so, for you to contend anything about him now, since he began his unproductive and weak NBA career ---shows that your pro-DEADWEIGHT CAUCASOID PLAYER urge, is shining bright.
Oh yey, go somewhere and realize, it's not possible for a man '20 & 10' guy averaging 10 rebounds "to put up stats only for himself" since rebounds are a facet of playing defense --------BIG DUH??-------- and since, from what I last recall, Zach doesn't push the ball upcourt himself, but gives it up to teammates after grabbing boards, then...you're really reaching!
See, you all can tell the same lies over and over and over and over and over again and again, all you want. That still won't change the truth. There is a peculiarly racist posting culture here, and you help make it that way. Period.
Xenophobe also means; fear of anything unlike yourself. As in, White-racists on bleacherreport.com who scrutinize good ---or great--- Black players, constantly, while giving 'a pass' to dead-weight contributing, Caucasoid players at the same time.
so smile for the camera, Sheriff!
from 4 months ago
First of all, Randolph was not 20 & 10 with the Knicks. He was 17.6 and 10.3, with 0.2 blocks per game. That alone shows his commitment to putting up big numbers that "count," such as points and rebounds. After rebounding the ball, he passes to a guard, who he hopes will pass back to him. After he gets the ball, he rarely passes it out. That explains his very low field goal percentage for a power forward. His lack of defense also hurt the team.
I obviously am not saying that Redick is an accomplished NBA player, because he obviously is not. Now that the Knicks signed Anthony Roberson, they would not need Redick at all. However, the main goal of the trades outlined above were to have a promising future and go after very productive players like LeBron James, Chris Bosh, and Dwyane Wade. I think we have the best chance at Bosh, and I would love to have him on the team.
4 months ago
Harris,
Zach was a 20 & 10 guy, during his career, as a starter. Of course, not during his career, while on a team entrenched in a losing attitude feat. Zach being made, a bench player for a nice portion of the season. So, it's unfair for you to even insinuate that he would be as productive, numbers wise, coming off of the bench as, when he was a starter. Especially when it all happened in (-) atmosphere, where Zeke was punishing him in a sense, therefore effecting his playing esteem.
And, I think LeBron will be the likely guy winding up in NY simply because, the other two you mentioned couldn't take that pressure. LeBron is the only one who seems like NY is where he 'should' be, and...exudes an attitude of, he needs NY and they need him.
from 4 months ago
Zach Randolph is not in a good situation with the Knicks, and could probably be a good addition to some other teams, I'll agree with you there. However, I don't think LeBron would go to the Knicks, because there will be another team in NY in 2010, the Nets. King James can rule the franchise and Brooklyn, his favorite part of NY.
4 months ago
Harris,
I forgot about that. He would likely pursue the Brooklyn team, considering his affinity for Hip-Hop's culture and Jay-Z's scrotum sac...but tell me:
How do you think Zach Randolph would fare, on that Brooklyn team, with LeBron?
from 4 months ago
I think it would be very similar to LeBron playing with Drew Gooden. If he didn't show teamwork, LeBron would ship him out of town faster than he could say Brooklyn Brewery.
4 months ago
*Zach avg. 17 points, on 15 shots per game, last year
*stayed at his 10 boards/per game avg...while playing the lowest minutes per game, as he has since 1st/2nd year in the NBA
*plus stayed at his 2+ assists per game avg., despite being sent to the bench as well, sooooo...
You're really reaching here Harris. And, I mean, better than Reed Richards too!
4 months ago
Hahaha... you guys crack me up.
Who pulls the race card on a sports blog? That's hilarious. I've seen it all.
Harris--a few things. For starters, I think you write really well, and I enjoyed reading your piece. With that said, you said a few things I disagree with/dislike, and I have to comment on them.
1. Your predictions from last year were way off. Just say so. We won't think you're stupid or anything. Predictions are just that, and sometimes, hey, the ball doesn't bounce the way we thought it would. No biggie. But in all reality, you picked the Knicks to make the playoffs last year--which, they would have at 41-41. Instead, they finished 18 games under .500. That's not "pretty accurate"--you were off by A LOT. A team you thought would make the playoffs finished with the second-worst record in the conference. It's Ok, I picked the Nets to win 54 games and the Atlantic last year. Shit happens. LOL.
2. Jared Jeffries and Renaldo Balkman are comparable no-skills-having hustle/defensive guys. But why in the world is Mardy Collins in that mix? Collins is a big and steady point guard. Maybe you meant they're the same player in regards to being "nothing special." I'd agree in that case, although I think Balkman is a nice guy to have on the bench, even if just for intensity-purposes. Remember this is the modern NBA--not the good ol' NBA when people knew how to play--so a skills-less guy who goes hard all the time can be an asset.
3. Those trades are ridiculous. I think you went on RealGM's trade checker and desperately looked for deals that would work out financially, and in the process ignored common sense.
Why in the world would Minnesota trade Mike Miller, one of the few good shooters in the league, for albatross Eddy Curry? Why? Especially after they JUST traded for Miller. Really, at this point, Kevin Love's stock is higher than Curry's.
Darko Milicic? Marko Jaric? Javaris Crittendon? These deals improve the Knicks? Are you serious?
JJ Redick? What? I'm with YoungCaucasoid on this one. Redick is nobody, and never will be. He can't do anything but shoot, and so far his NBA career shooting percentage is 42%. Trajan Langdon. Casey Jacobsen. The list goes on. At least Jason Kapono is 6-foot-8. But a 6-4 190-pound spot-up shooter who can't play point will be out of the NBA before you know it.
And you're smoking if you think the Magic are going to give up a first rounder for Nate Robinson and Mardy Collins, two other guys, like Redick, who will be out of the league in a few years.
Randolph and Crawford for Wally Szczerbiak and Eric Snow? Again. How does this help the Knicks compete NOW? And could the Cavs take on that kind of money? Don't think so.
The one deal that does make sense is the Camby one, although it's going to cost more than Renaldo Balkman as the second man to Randolph. The Clippers need a two, and Crawford would be ideal. I was going to blog about this--maybe I will today--but I really think a Camby, Mobley for Randolph, Crawford deal is in the works. Crawford is too inefficient to play Antoni's game, but Mobley isn't--he's a much better three-point shooter, and he plays D, and he doesn't need to hog the ball. Camby gives the Knicks a defensive presence in the middle. He wants off the Clippers and would love coming back to NY. I see it happening.
Overall, good piece.
from 4 months ago
You make some good points. Don't worry, I have answers.
1. Last year I was pessimistic about almost every single player on the team, but figured they couldn't possibly do worse than the previous year. So although my individual predictions were accurate, my team prediction was way off. It's hard to predict distractions and injuries.
2. Mardy Collins is in the mix because he has shown no offensive skills, and is known as a defensive guy. Do we really want three guys who aren't great at anything (although Balkman can at least block and steal) and can't shoot at all on the team?
3. Minnesota has shown they want to go with youth. Curry is younger than Miller and could give them a decent center, if we consider Al Jefferson to be a power forward. Also, I think Kevin Love is the major reason McHale made the deal, not Mike Miller. It's hopeful, but not insane.
I would release Eddy Curry and Quentin Richardson. Getting anything back is great. You can't argue both ways, A-Train. If Curry is trash, then why not trade him away? If he's good, why not trade for Mike Miller?
I don't see why Redick can't be like Steve Kerr. But since the Knicks signed Roberson, they wouldn't want Redick.
Nate Robinson is a solid player. A slightly taller Earl Boykins, or Mookie Blaylock.
The Knicks are not able to win now. They might as well save money and trade away guys who don't really help them win anyway and have never been winners.
I hope Camby does want to come back to NY.
4 months ago
Also, the "Summer of LeBron" is way over-hyped. Realistically, most of the will-be free agents will re-sign with their teams. It's not like Bosh, Wade, and LeBron will all be out there and available. Please. A few of these guys will be free, but the rest will re-sign.
And if the Cavs do something, anything, to show they're a competitor, LeBron ain't leaving.
As far as Zach Randolph goes... Zach is your typical player who starts out with a bang his first 4-6 years and then slowly disappears. He's serviceable, but at the amount of money he makes, he's so grossly overpaid that he's garbage. He'll never be an All-Star. He'll never win dirt. He's just a guy who plays on bad teams and compiles stats. He might be a good guy, great, but who cares?--it's all about winning games. I'll take a murderer who can ball before I take a saint who can't play. It's about winning. In that regard, Randolph is so irrelevant as a player.
But some team that needs a low-post scoring will take a stab at him. Compilers tend to do well when they have talent around them and they're not the go-to guy.
from 4 months ago
See Steve Francis and Jalen Rose as recent examples of "compliers." Also: Shareef Abdur-Rahim, and (should be) Jamal Crawford.
4 months ago
Nate Robinson is Mookie Blaylock? Blaylock was a good player, a starter and a 12-year vet.
Robinson can't even get 25 minutes per night on a crappy Knicks team that has a bad guard situation. He has yet to show he's going to stick around in the league.
How can you make that comparison? If anything, Robinson is Spud Webb all over again, a guy who is kept around for entertainment purposes. Boykins is steady and contributes. Robinson doesn't know how to play organized ball.
from 4 months ago
In terms of shooting threes, driving to the basket, and defense, there are quite a few similarities between Nate Robinson and Mookie Blaylock. Mookie is taller, but Robinson uses his great athleticism to rebound well for his position. He shoots pretty well, and contrary to popular opinion, does not turn the ball over often.
Compared to Boykins, he shoots better, rebounds twice as well, and turns the ball over less, despite scoring nearly 13 a game. Nate Robinson is a solid player, above league average in many areas. Just because he only got 25 minutes a game on a bad team does not mean he's bad. The team was obviously coached horribly.
Spud Webb was an excellent player. I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.
4 months ago
"I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about."
Good. The feeling is almost mutual--I know you have no idea what you're talking about.
Nobody who KNOWS basketball will make a comparison between Mookie Blaylock--whom I wonder if you've ever watched play--and Nate Robinson. Blaylock was a steady point guard who was elite defensively. Robinson is a wild 5-foot-9 scorer who doesn't know how to play point, let alone lead a team on the floor, and who can't defend anybody. He is ideal as a high-energy scoring punch off the bench for some team somewhere. But he doesn't have the physical attributes, skills or basketball IQ, to ever be more than a back-up in the league. But fine, if you disagree, we'll just have to wait and see.
Earl Boykins is a tremendous shooter, especially within the three-point line. This is a comparison to Robinson I can accept because of their roles, size, etc. At best, I think Robinson can fill a Boykins-like role. 25 minutes per night... provide some energy. Nothing more.
Spud Webb was an excellent player? I guess. I mean, do you think Brevin Knight is an excellent player? They're serviceable quality role players, but to call them "excellent players" is a stretch. I mean, Webb has career averages of 10 points, 5 assists in 25 minutes per. As far as efficiency goes, sure, he's fine. But that's a backup point's career.
I mean, you do realize, we're talking about nobodies in the grand scheme of things, right? By far, Blaylock was better than all of the guys we mentioned, and undoubtedly, there's zero chance of Robinson having a Blaylock-like career.
I don't know how you can like Nate Robinson. The guy has no idea what he's doing. The Knicks will get rid of him soon--you'll see.
from 4 months ago
I didn't say I like him, but to say he's garbage and will be out of the league soon is unfair. He is at least as valuable as Earl Boykins, who is still in the league at age 33.
I actually meant Spud Webb instead of Mookie Blaylock, but you can't edit comments. That's pretty obvious considering I said "a slightly taller..." Mookie was obviously better.
If Nate Robinson was 6'1 and coached in actual offense, I think he could put up good numbers. Spud Webb and Blaylock did not begin their career racking up assists, and were not on such disasters of teams. You also can't use career averages to describe a player. Yes, Brevin Knight is an excellent basketball player in the grand scheme of things. In the NBA, he is serviceable, and if he could shoot, he'd be a star. Likewise, Nate Robinson has already put up Barbosa-type stats, yet for some reason people act like he stinks. In the right system, on a winning team, he could be very productive for a long time. I know the summer league does not predict much, but he showed much better playmaking ability when not relied on to produce points off the benc.
4 months ago
I hear you... let me ask you this though--did you ever play organized, competitive basketball?
Because if you have, you might feel differently about Nate Robinson. Nate is the talented guy at the schoolyard who can score 40 points. He'll take 30 shots, commit 10 turnovers, lose the game, etc., but he'll get his 40 points and make a few highlight plays that'll leave people talking about him.
That's Ok at the playground. But when you play on a team, with a coach, and so forth, efficiency is huge. Sure Nate put up some numbers last year, but that was only because there was no organization. The Knicks were awful, nothing mattered, the locker room was in shambles, leadership was non-existent--so Nate was allowed to come in and basically do what he wanted. He got minutes and collected numbers... worthless numbers during insignificant game situations.
On an organized team with good leadership, Nate will have to play a role, and play that role to a T. If it's as a point guard, forget it, he'll be out of the league. If it's as an energy guy off the bench, sure, he can do that. But whatever his role is, he'll have to be efficient.
I think Nate has always done what Nate has wanted to do. I think he's uncoachable.
I might be wrong... and you might be right Harris...I totally acknowledge that. We'll see what happens.
write a new comment