There has been a lot of teams that win without superstars.
There are a lot of players who are superstars because they have good players around them.
Win what exactly? If your talking about having some playoff sucess and winning regular season games, then yes it's possible to do without a superstar, but how many teams win a championship without one? The only team in the last 8 years that won a championship without a superstar are the Pistons, and even then they had such a deep roster and were such a defensive force. And if you even look at that team, other then Teyshaun, all of their players were either free-agent signings or players that they traded for.
Look I like the idea of rebuilding, but I don't think we should to a huge blow up with this team yet. We have young players and all we need to do is keep playing together, make moves here and there, and hope we get a superstar type player somehow. But I don't think blowing up the team for cap space is necessary, besides the whole thing of having cap-space is completely overated in the 1st place. Hawks have cap space and they still suck. The Cavs had cap space 2 years ago, yet they couldn't find good players for Lebron. The Bulls ended up over paying for a center they didn't need. SO on and so forth. Can anyone name big free-agent signing that significantly improved the team. Shaq, Gilbert, and um, Memo Okur I guess.
Win what exactly? If your talking about having some playoff sucess and winning regular season games, then yes it's possible to do without a superstar, but how many teams win a championship without one?
That Sonics team that won the ship had no superstars.
That Sonics team that won the ship had no superstars.
Ok, I didn't say it was impossible, but make a list. On one side put teams that won the championship with a superstar and the other side without one, and get back to me.
They either have a lot of cap space and sign one to a huge contract.
Or they are losers for a few years and finally score on the lottery picks they have.
I still think the Spurs dumped the season to get a lottery pick.
Like I said, how many superstars have been signed outright in free-agency? Shaq and Gilbert are the recent ones on top of my head, can you think of any other? And the Spurs had a lot of injuries and Boston actually had the worst record that year, and they still didn't get the 1st overall pick.
That Sonics team that won the ship had no superstars.
which sonics team are you talking about? i dont know when they won a championship but if your talking about when they went to the finals they had payton n kemp
which sonics team are you talking about? i dont know when they won a championship but if your talking about when they went to the finals they had payton n kemp
Not the GP-Kemp Sonics. It was an older team. In the late 70's I believe. I'll look it up.
Defense, defense, defense, unselfish play and hustle.
The Pistons of Isiah's era and recently, name the super star on those teams.
I mean even Tim Duncan or Jordan could not do it alone, it was about team play and defense.
We have some good big men. We need some guards who know how to distribute and play D, make the shot when they're open or in transition.
It's all about team play and defense. Marbury has gotten better but regressed without Crawford, Q and Lee around him. Francis has made things worse and those two are too much of a mirror image. They cancel each other out and both will put up numbers except when it counts, you lose.
As controversial at it seems, I want to trade for Ron Artest and Ben Wallace. Scenario 1 Knicks trade-
Channing Frye
Jerome James Bulls trade-
Ben Wallace
2 Round Rookie pick
The Bulls would do this trade because they get rid of Big Ben's contract, and his ego. They get a young big man that they could build around.
The Knicks do this because they need a shot blocking big man to complement Eddy Curry, as well as to get rid of Jerome James. Sure, they lose a great player in Channing Frye, but they get Ben Wallace who doesn't demand the ball, and is one of the best defensive players in the league. The 2 round rookie pick would be put into good use by Isiah Thomas. Scenario 2 Knicks trade-
Renaldo Balkman
Mardy Collins
Steve Francis Kings trade-
Ron Artest
John Salmons
The Kings do this trade because they have to get rid of Ron Artest and his baggage, but they also have to receive quality young players in return. Renaldo Balkman and Mardy Collins are great players to help them in that conquest. They also get Steve Francis, who despite his bloated contract, has shown in recent days that he is still capable of being a solid starter. This would give the Kings an easy path to trading Mike Bibby. They also get rid of John Salmons superfluous contract.
The Knicks do this trade because Ron Artest is just too talented both offensively and defensively to pass up on. The fact that Artest went to St.Johns is a plus. The Knicks also get to trade Steve Francis's contract, something they obviously want to do. John Salmons would be the fill in starting guard until Quentin Richardson and Jamal Crawford come back.
Sure, these ideas are radical, and most likely aren't going to be executed, however, I don't think that the opposite GMs would be opposed to making a deal like this with the Knicks, just imagine this lineup-
PG-Marbury/Robinson
SG-Crawford/Richardson/Salmons
SF-Artest/Jeffries/
PF-Wallace/Lee/Rose
C-Curry/Cato
This team would be so much better defensively, and offensively, they wouldn't skip a beat. We lose alot of depth in the front court, but that's all going to work out through the draft, and free agency. Anybody else agree with my "radical" views?
As controversial at it seems, I want to trade for Ron Artest and Ben Wallace. Scenario 1 Knicks trade-
Channing Frye
Jerome James Bulls trade-
Ben Wallace
2 Round Rookie pick
The Bulls would do this trade because they get rid of Big Ben's contract, and his ego. They get a young big man that they could build around.
The Knicks do this because they need a shot blocking big man to complement Eddy Curry, as well as to get rid of Jerome James. Sure, they lose a great player in Channing Frye, but they get Ben Wallace who doesn't demand the ball, and is one of the best defensive players in the league. The 2 round rookie pick would be put into good use by Isiah Thomas. Scenario 2 Knicks trade-
Renaldo Balkman
Mardy Collins
Steve Francis Kings trade-
Ron Artest
John Salmons
The Kings do this trade because they have to get rid of Ron Artest and his baggage, but they also have to receive quality young players in return. Renaldo Balkman and Mardy Collins are great players to help them in that conquest. They also get Steve Francis, who despite his bloated contract, has shown in recent days that he is still capable of being a solid starter. This would give the Kings an easy path to trading Mike Bibby. They also get rid of John Salmons superfluous contract.
The Knicks do this trade because Ron Artest is just too talented both offensively and defensively to pass up on. The fact that Artest went to St.Johns is a plus. The Knicks also get to trade Steve Francis's contract, something they obviously want to do. John Salmons would be the fill in starting guard until Quentin Richardson and Jamal Crawford come back.
Sure, these ideas are radical, and most likely aren't going to be executed, however, I don't think that the opposite GMs would be opposed to making a deal like this with the Knicks, just imagine this lineup-
PG-Marbury/Robinson
SG-Crawford/Richardson/Salmons
SF-Artest/Jeffries/
PF-Wallace/Lee/Rose
C-Curry/Cato
This team would be so much better defensively, and offensively, they wouldn't skip a beat. We lose alot of depth in the front court, but that's all going to work out through the draft, and free agency. Anybody else agree with my "radical" views?
I love it except for one thing. David Lee will lose a lot of minutes. But having two of the best defensive players in the league will make up for it. Plus Marbury, Richardson, and Cato (as far as I know, I haven't seen him play that much at all since Sacramento backing up Vlade Divac) can all play good defense. And we all now that defense wins championships. So I would start Richardson over Crawford. He said in an interview that after having the off-season to rest his back, he would be back to the player to he was before and would no longer have constant back injuries (I don't know if he was just saying this though).
Re: Knick's Wish List
: 
