Those of you that have turned something simple into something so convoluted it doesn't even begin to resemble the original thoughts. Twinkiefoot and Grinch have very clearly explained that they wish Randolph gone. They have also explained that some teams that may be better with him than without him, ergo, there is a market for him. When he is traded (and he will be), will all of you arrogant buffoons return to admit your lack of mental capacity? Somehow, I doubt it. I do expect, however, more vague and irrelevant responses. Go have at it.
-UssKittyHawk
Last edited by USSKittyHawk : 09-13-2008 at 09:01 PM.
Reason: personal attack
Those of you that have turned something simple into something so convoluted it doesn't even begin to resemble the original thoughts. Twinkiefoot and Grinch have very clearly explained that they wish Randolph gone. They have also explained that some teams that may be better with him than without him, ergo, there is a market for him. When he is traded (and he will be), will all of you arrogant buffoons return to admit your lack of mental capacity? Somehow, I doubt it. I do expect, however, more vague and irrelevant responses. Go have at it.
You better hope he's traded, for the good of your poor excuse for the NBA team. NY bias rears its ugly head again. Damn, it is so fun making people like you look foolish.
__________________
Proof > word of mouth.
Last edited by USSKittyHawk : 09-13-2008 at 09:08 PM.
I like Vince, and I believe your post is correct, he was acting a fool especially around the time he was with the Raptors and then got traded to the Nets. Just because he was beefing with management does not mean you don't give a 100 percent while you are on the floor. That is what professional players are paid to do. The fact he was giving opposing teams and idea on what plays were coming was very unprofessional and detrimental to the team and it shows no class. Lastly, I don't understand why people think that Randolph has been the only guy to ever been called a cancer, that shouldn't even be up for debate it's been well documented that players in every era has had some sort of issues where they were detrimental to the team.
I dont know either , it happens alot from big shot bob horry when he threw that towel in Ainge's face to Qyntel Woods, some1 getting called a cancer doesn't make it so , also it doesn't mean if it was ever warranted it stays that way.
I personally dont care for the term, it belittles a disease that kills thousands a year by comparing it to what is in most cases a millionaire(s) unhappy with his/her work enviroment.
__________________
Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.
I can argue with class at will. At this particular moment in this particular thread, i'm choosing to be a *edit* to help get the message across.
I'm all for a bet, but what does 'If Zach gets traded' have to do with any of this? If Zach is traded, it only shows how either desperate or stupid Memphis is. I never made a prediction to say that he will or will not be traded, I said that any team willing to bring him in would be doing themselves a big disservice.
__________________
Proof > word of mouth.
Last edited by USSKittyHawk : 09-13-2008 at 09:13 PM.
If that's what you see, I have nothing else to add regarding that play. If a Knick fan can watch that and feel good about the play, why should I bother.
I never said I felt good about the play. If I do recall correctly, I clearly stated it was a bone-headed move. All I'm trying to say is that that play certainly should not be used as evidence of him being some one man team wrecking crew.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seifer0406
It is true that VC wasn't the toughest player in the league, but that is far from being labelled as "cancer". For someone that uses such lenient standards on Zach Randolph, you seem to be quick to strike on players from other teams. People have questioned Dirk for his toughness, but nobody has ever called him the cancer of his team. Until the last 6 month of VC's stay in Toronto, there have been very limited drama associated with the guy. He was injured and his game went downhill, but until the last year and half or so, the Raptors were still winning games and was still competitive, not something you can say about Zach Randolph's teams.
There's a difference between being soft and reportedly not giving your all or milking injuries. Once again, the guy went to a concert and was dancing on stage when he was reportedly too hurt to play. Big difference there.
I also think you have either a very short or selective memory. Carter was booed extensively the year that the Raptors got Olajuwon because of his reluctance to take the ball to the hole. That booing continued infrequently from that point on and till this day with him as a Net, by Raptor fans. And if by competitive, you mean a 24-58 record during the 2002-2003 season and a 33-49 record during the 2003-2004 season then by all means feel so. If that's the case, then the Knicks were title contenders the past few years. What's even more pathetic about the situation is that the Raptors posted the same 33-49 record AFTER Carter go traded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seifer0406
For something that's bolded it sure made little sense. VC wanted to trade the pick for a veteran because he wants to win now. How does that make him a selfish player? He did not know that Bosh would be such a good player, but that doesn't make him selfish. It means that he probably won't be a good GM after his playing days are over, but as far as proving your point goes, it's a swing and a miss.
I don't believe there is anything wrong with wanting to win. I just believe there was something seriously wrong about the way Carter did it, and I'm not alone in this sentiment. He was being handsomely rewarded for a reason and that was to be the leader of the team. Rather than being a man and accepting those responsibilities, he *****ed and moaned about his situation despite him helping to deliver the Raptors into it in the first place. He was the one that strongly encouraged the Raptors resign many of the veterans that were already on a rapid decline and he himself became very timid in his play; I also sometimes wonder about the McGrady situation and how could your best-friend/cousin run to a different team when it was abundantly clear they were the next up and comers. In either case, Carter had no ground to carry on with his childish antics given the luxuries the Raptors afforded him; had he shut up long enough to let management do their job, he could have formed a pretty impressive duo with Bosh and had a competitive team.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seifer0406
I said that Rodman is someone that you can considered to be a cancer but he was under control under the likes of Jordan and Phil Jackson. It's quite hilarious how you compared MJ to Zach Randolph. It's called leading by examples. If Zach plays like that play I showed you earlier, what position is he in to call out his team mates? Now that's a double standard.
Funny thing is that Phil Jackson was with the Lakers when Rodman was acting up, so where are you going with this? What's even more ridiculous is the fact that you misconstrued what I said as Randolph being equal to Jordan as a player. All I said is that Jordan consistently called players out and was never criticized for it. Why should Randolph be? That particular play you pointed out was 7 seconds out of a career that has seen 13,423 minutes and then some in the league.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seifer0406
I don't know if you were watching the games back then, but Sam Cassell was a key bench player during the Rockets championship run. Say what you want about him, but he has taken teams to the playoffs everywhere he went. Just because a player wishes to get a decent contract does not make him a "cancer" to the team. The fact that he was underrated for most of his career which led to being an underpaid isn't something that he should be responsible for.
Cassell was a solid bench player...keyword being bench. At the same time, however, I'm not trying to say the cancer term was merited. I am trying to say that it has been associated with particular parts of his career, justified or not. I personally don't buy the whole cancer nonsense because I think success is often circumstantial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seifer0406
Yes, guys on that team were busted for marijuana, gun possession, and even dog fighting but it's not their fault. It's Sheed that is the cancer of that team, not the people that were breaking the law. What were you saying about common sense again?
When did I say that other members of that Portland team were angels? All I'm saying is that Rasheed certainly was one of the worst character guys on the team.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seifer0406
How about him and Paul Pierce(another player you labelled as cancer in the early part(would be this part) of his career) taking the Celtics to the conference finals? You should discontinue posting in this thread, you haven't made any sense since 3 posts ago and by the look of things it's not going to start any time soon.
Your obviously missing the point. Once again, reading is fundamental. I'm not a supporter of this whole "cancer" philosophy simply because I've seen far too many players with that tag at one point of their career, win big elsewhere. Your ignorance of Walker's career is not an issue for me. Perhaps you should take a trip over to the Celtics board and discuss with them their opinions of him. While your at it, go over to the Miami Heat board and have a little chat as well. I've also heard some pretty negative things from Grizzly fans that just got him (although it's all based on the perception of his previous stops).
Quote:
Originally Posted by seifer0406
Anyone with some knowledge of these players would recognize SAR as the obvious cancer. I'll give you a hint, go look up the active player list for most games played without any playoff appearance. And how about the way they got SAR? They traded this fella by the name of Pau Gasol to get him. You don't call those people idiots? Well, then I don't feel right calling you that either.
Yeah, I'm sure. This is the kind of stupidity that shouldn't be aired in public. Maybe SAR not making the playoffs had a little something to do with his teams completely sucking. None of them get immediately better after he left, now did they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by seifer0406
lol, I don't even know what to say to that. You can post this in the main forums and perhaps the hundreds of people reading there can help burst your bubble. I certainly have never seen someone with such a slanted view on some of the most well-known events/players in the past decade or so.
I don't recall anyone here claiming that Randolph will never be traded. Even horrible players with horrible contracts can get traded for players of similar kind, just look at Larry Hughes and Ben Wallace. The entire debate here is his value. Certain individuals feel that he should be valued as a 20/10 player, while most people feel that he is not nearly worth that much as he does not help any team win ball games. If you have a hard time following the thread, instead of issuing duels online perhaps you should take some time reading the thing over and not make a fool of yourself.
Last edited by USSKittyHawk : 09-13-2008 at 09:13 PM.
And exactly where do you get the theory that Brandon Roy's a prima donna?
Maybe the common sense part of the equation that tells me nothing is absolute. Roy may very well be a nice guy, I think so, but that doesn't mean he can never be in the wrong. Maybe Randolph had a point in the squabble they had. Maybe he didn't. You don't know because you were not there. Therefore, I find it difficult for you to draw the sort of conclusions you've arrived at because its based on nothing but assumption.
What prompted the Blazers to think about a post-Sheed future was their goal (or so they say) for a team that represents the community better. I guess the only logical explanation why they kept Randolph (assuming that was their goal) was that his bad-egg antics hadn't really got going yet.
Remember, Its not me suggesting that the Blazers were going for a cleaner image, its the teams' management at the time that stated that as their goal. So don't try to turn that around somehow.
The Blazers management without a doubt set out on a mission to clean up their players act. The funny thing is that that was not an issue when they were actually considered contenders. By the time they started thinking post-Sheed, a majority of the players they had had fallen off significantly (Shawn Kemp anyone?) and were in desperate need of a make-over. Randolph's play just helped expediate Sheed's departure from the team. In either case, Randolph was a major contributor on that playoff team and outperformed several prominent players.
I hate to break the news, but the NBA has a salary cap, has had one for some time now. And even if the league didn't have a salary cap, your Knicks haven't shown the faintest hint that they know how to spend money on players wisely.
Where is this depth? Your roster, aside from maybe New Jersey or OKC, is the most incompetent in the NBA, full of untalented and uncouth players that most teams would never want anything to do with. Your team has no depth.
What a moronic statement. I know you're not the sharpest tack in the box but that one just blindsided me. Wow.
Could you possibly inform yourself before you respond to my posts? The Knicks for the past several years have handedly spent more money on their roster than any other team in the league and demonstrated they are willing to bite the bullet on bad contracts. We sent Marbury home, we bought out Larry Brown Jalen Rose and Maurice Taylor, along with Shandon Anderson, etc. If we really wanted Randolph gone, we would do the same or at the very least send him home or away from the team like Marbury.
Right behind Randolph, we have David Lee who is one of the best rebounders in the league and one of the best at converting the looks he gets on the floor. He easily can log significant minutes with us and still have Wilson Chandler and Danilo Gallarni looking for scrap minutes. We'd be pretty good at the 4 spot in Randolph's absence. So once again, we are both deep enough and wealthy enough for Randolph to take an extended leave from the team.
So please, do yourself a favor and go read a book about something before you decide to continue to make a fool out of yourself.
Nobody is saying anything other than Randolph has substantial value. What that value is, can be legitimately argued, however, anything you have posted has no real basis in fact, which would be considered vitally important to winning any argument. Twinkie is anal about using statistical and historical facts.
I also don't recall anyone saying we should get a whole bunch back in value....only that we shouldn't give up too much more, such as an additional 1st. In fact, Kman was in favor of sacrificing the pick, as well. Bottom line is this: there will always be a team willing to take a chance on a talented player and history has proven it time and again. Most of us feel we should find one of those teams.
And to young Jacob: The Celts were an absolute train wreck until Ainge got his buddy to help. They'll soon be back there too...and for a long time.
This conversation would be infinitely more educated if I was talking with truknicksfan, Kitty, bball2223, Knick_Killer, I guess Kiyaman, you know, Knicks fan who have shown me that they at least know something. But instead I have to deal with a stubborn mule like you who, besides calling himself 'TwinkieFoot', is stupid enough that he just can't process that fact that he's dead wrong despite having all the facts and all the evidence right there in front of him. The reason I keep asking you the same questions is because you still haven't picked up on the fact you and Grinch are dead wrong about Zach Randolph and he will never win anything over the course of his career. He's a cancer and an unwelcome hindrance to whatever team's doorstep he lands on.
I suggest that you get this through your granite-hard skull. For your sake, so you look somewhat smarter (maybe). I personally don't give a **** if you don't understand, more fun for me embarrassing you time and time again.
That's nice, lovely even....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacoby_Ellsbury
As a player, he can score, yes. Yes, he can rebound. But we've already gone over his two most crippling attributes that kill teams he plays for. I'll explain them again, in hopes that maybe you'll understand:
1) He plays no defense, and couldn't if he tried - Randolph is a ****ty defender, end of story. Defense is an essential part of any team's hopes of winning a fair amount of basketball games and going deep into the playoffs. Say what you want about 'surrounding him with help defenders', but the big men are the last line of a team's defense, and having Ron Artest and D.J. Strawberry on the perimeter won't help his deficincies. Sorry.
2) He is black hole on offense - Yeah sure, he can score. But he's selfish, and he never passes. He kills ball movement. Ball movement is also important for any team with hopes of doing damage in their conference/league. He stalls everything, and I'm gonna say a fair bit of his points come from him just hogging the ball so much. Why do you think the Knicks were 21st in the league in scoring last year, with supposedly so much 'talent', and won so few games? This isn't rocket science.
Good to see that you finally seem to be getting it about his character. Its comforting to know that you're only partially retarded as opposed to completely.
And once again, I'll address your ridiculous comments for a 3rd time.
1.) Randolph isn't a good defender. So are alot of guys that put up close to 20 and 10. It generally happens often with franchise players around the league. That doesn't mean it diminishes what he does on the court because what he does do is not easily accomplished by one player. Like any player, he has his flaws but the purpose of having a supporting cast in the first place is to cover one another's flaws. Randolph, particularly covers quite a few flaws by himself so putting a shot-blocker next to him is bargain basement. And yes, your CENTER IS THE LAST LINE OF DEFENSE. Randolph generally doesn't have very many help assignments because he usually has to cover a position that includes some of the best scorers in the league. It's the guy playing next to him in the post, to help him out.
2.) At the rate he converts shots and where he gets them, he should be getting the ball more than his teammates on average. That's generally called being a scorer and wanting to win by playing to your strong suits on the floor. Can his passing improve? Certainly. Does he make poor decisions with the ball sometimes? Definately. Can those things be improved given his age and experience? Most certainly.
The Knicks also had no legitimate series of plays run during the course of last season. We also had poor distributors at the guard position that was even accussed by Isiah Thomas of not distributing the ball correctly. That's why we were one of the lowest scoring teams in the league.
I never said I felt good about the play. If I do recall correctly, I clearly stated it was a bone-headed move. All I'm trying to say is that that play certainly should not be used as evidence of him being some one man team wrecking crew.
It shouldn't? How many other power forwards in the NBA (quality character or not) have pulled something like that? That's one of the biggest signs, of many, that he's trouble.
Quote:
There's a difference between being soft and reportedly not giving your all or milking injuries. Once again, the guy went to a concert and was dancing on stage when he was reportedly too hurt to play. Big difference there.
I also think you have either a very short or selective memory. Carter was booed extensively the year that the Raptors got Olajuwon because of his reluctance to take the ball to the hole. That booing continued infrequently from that point on and till this day with him as a Net, by Raptor fans. And if by competitive, you mean a 24-58 record during the 2002-2003 season and a 33-49 record during the 2003-2004 season then by all means feel so. If that's the case, then the Knicks were title contenders the past few years. What's even more pathetic about the situation is that the Raptors posted the same 33-49 record AFTER Carter go traded.
Gee, I wonder why that is. Is it because they traded him for one decent player and two or three scrubs, while the decent player refused to report to the team? Or because Chris Bosh hadn't come into his own yet? Is it because Toronto didn't much of anything on that team even before they traded Carter?
The correct answer is, all of the above.
Quote:
Funny thing is that Phil Jackson was with the Lakers when Rodman was acting up, so where are you going with this? What's even more ridiculous is the fact that you misconstrued what I said as Randolph being equal to Jordan as a player. All I said is that Jordan consistently called players out and was never criticized for it. Why should Randolph be? That particular play you pointed out was 7 seconds out of a career that has seen 13,423 minutes and then some in the league.
So now you're comparing Randolph to Jordan?
Jordan could get away with critiquing his own players because he was a known champion at heart and desperately wanted to win. He had a competitive drive like no other. When he called out teammates it was for the best.
Your friend Randolph, on the other hand, for the millionth time, has been nothing but problems since his time in the NBA. When he calls guys out, there's a fair chance he's just pissed off and looking for someone to blame.
BTW that 7 seconds told an awful lot about the player you keep foolishly defending.
Quote:
When did I say that other members of that Portland team were angels? All I'm saying is that Rasheed certainly was one of the worst character guys on the team.
I think if you ask guys that have played with Sheed about his team attitude, you won't get too many bad reports. The only thing Sheed is guilty of is constantly going after the refs and racking up technical fouls. Also, can you point out any run-in's with the law Sheed may have had?
Quote:
Your obviously missing the point. Once again, reading is fundamental. I'm not a supporter of this whole "cancer" philosophy simply because I've seen far too many players with that tag at one point of their career, win big elsewhere. Your ignorance of Walker's career is not an issue for me. Perhaps you should take a trip over to the Celtics board and discuss with them their opinions of him. While your at it, go over to the Miami Heat board and have a little chat as well. I've also heard some pretty negative things from Grizzly fans that just got him (although it's all based on the perception of his previous stops).
Yeah, I've been a Celtics' fan since Walker first arrived in Boston, and I can tell you that he wasn't a cancer. He butted heads with Paul Pierce during one game and they smoothed it over. That's it.
Nobody is saying anything other than Randolph has substantial value. What that value is, can be legitimately argued, however, anything you have posted has no real basis in fact, which would be considered vitally important to winning any argument. Twinkie is anal about using statistical and historical facts.
I also don't recall anyone saying we should get a whole bunch back in value....only that we shouldn't give up too much more, such as an additional 1st. In fact, Kman was in favor of sacrificing the pick, as well. Bottom line is this: there will always be a team willing to take a chance on a talented player and history has proven it time and again. Most of us feel we should find one of those teams.
And to young Jacob: The Celts were an absolute train wreck until Ainge got his buddy to help. They'll soon be back there too...and for a long time.
Ooooooooooh.
We have these funny things called building blocks, outside of the big 3. You know, like Rondo and Perkins (and quite possibly Bill Walker). So when Pierce, KG, and Allen are no longer effective or just gone, we have guys ready to step in and keep us afloat.
So have fun continuing to look up at us for the forseeable future. Your team will be garbage for the next 5 years at least and probably very mediocre beyond that.
Obey the rules, no baiting.
-UssKittyHawk
__________________
Proof > word of mouth.
Last edited by USSKittyHawk : 09-13-2008 at 08:37 PM.
I never said I felt good about the play. If I do recall correctly, I clearly stated it was a bone-headed move. All I'm trying to say is that that play certainly should not be used as evidence of him being some one man team wrecking crew.
Why shouldn't it be used as evidence of what type of player he is? Most people criticize him for his selfishness on offense and that was exactly what happened on that play. It showed that he didn't give a **** about a 3 point game and was more interested in showing his displeasure during the period of time when Isiah gave him limited minutes. And for someone who apparently didn't feel good about the play, you sure exert a lot of effort trying to rationalize what Zach was doing. Give me a break.
Quote:
I also think you have either a very short or selective memory. Carter was booed extensively the year that the Raptors got Olajuwon because of his reluctance to take the ball to the hole. That booing continued infrequently from that point on and till this day with him as a Net, by Raptor fans. And if by competitive, you mean a 24-58 record during the 2002-2003 season and a 33-49 record during the 2003-2004 season then by all means feel so. If that's the case, then the Knicks were title contenders the past few years. What's even more pathetic about the situation is that the Raptors posted the same 33-49 record AFTER Carter go traded.
And guess who was injured during those season? It was VC. Before those 2 seasons, the Raptors made the playoffs in 3 straight years.
And to wrap this up, this entire discussion about Carter started because you said he was a cancer that went on to turn his career around playing for another team. Not only did the Nets went from a team that made multiple final appearances to not being able to get out of the 2nd round after they got VC, their team has been on a steady downhill ride since he got there. We can turn this into a VC discussion if you feel like but it still has no relevance to your original point.
Quote:
I don't believe there is anything wrong with wanting to win. I just believe there was something seriously wrong about the way Carter did it, and I'm not alone in this sentiment.
Your sentiment is quite interesting, but I'll say again regarding your original post, for something that was bolded it sure made little sense proving your point. The fact that he wanted to win doesn't make him a team cancer. Kobe wanted to trade Andrew Bynum for Jason Kidd because he wants to win now. What a horrible trade that would've been. Do you consider Kobe as the cancer of LA because he didn't know how good a player is? Another swing and miss Twinkie, go grow a mustache like Giambi and perhaps you'll improve your post accuracy average.
Quote:
Funny thing is that Phil Jackson was with the Lakers when Rodman was acting up, so where are you going with this? What's even more ridiculous is the fact that you misconstrued what I said as Randolph being equal to Jordan as a player. All I said is that Jordan consistently called players out and was never criticized for it. Why should Randolph be? That particular play you pointed out was 7 seconds out of a career that has seen 13,423 minutes and then some in the league.
MJ and Phil Jackson. Someone needs to go back to elementary and learn the difference between and/or. And for the love of god stop comparing Zach freaking Randolph with MJ. Theres no need to bring a legend into such retardation.
Quote:
Cassell was a solid bench player...keyword being bench. At the same time, however, I'm not trying to say the cancer term was merited. I am trying to say that it has been associated with particular parts of his career, justified or not. I personally don't buy the whole cancer nonsense because I think success is often circumstantial.
I don't really know where you're going with this. You labelled a bunch of random players as team cancers and now you're backtracking because you realize you're dead wrong?
And success is circumstantial unless someone always happen to be in winning circumstances. When the Clippers posted their best record in god knows how long, Cassell was there. When KG had his best season (team-wise) prior to joining the Celtics, Cassell was there. If you can bring the LA freaking Clippers back to the playoffs, that counts for something.
Quote:
When did I say that other members of that Portland team were angels? All I'm saying is that Rasheed certainly was one of the worst character guys on the team.
If you haven't understood the term "Team cancer", perhaps it's best that you not use it. When you have a team full of guys breaking rules and being immature teenage millionaires, the guy that's holding his own shouldn't be considered as the "cancer" of the team. Could Sheed played better when he was with the Blazers? Sure. But as far as their nick name the Jailblazers go, Sheed had nothing to do with those morons breaking laws and it's not right for you to expect him to be the babysitter of the team.
Quote:
Your obviously missing the point. Once again, reading is fundamental. I'm not a supporter of this whole "cancer" philosophy simply because I've seen far too many players with that tag at one point of their career, win big elsewhere. Your ignorance of Walker's career is not an issue for me. Perhaps you should take a trip over to the Celtics board and discuss with them their opinions of him. While your at it, go over to the Miami Heat board and have a little chat as well. I've also heard some pretty negative things from Grizzly fans that just got him (although it's all based on the perception of his previous stops).
Just point out the part of your post that I misread. All I am saying is the fact that the 2 of them brought the Celtics to the conference finals means that they are at least doing something right. I don't even know if you understand the term cancer well enough to decide whether to support or not. If a team is winning, then its leaders are not cancers. Isn't that simple enough? Again, what were you saying about common sense? Because you desperately need a dose of that right about now.
Quote:
Yeah, I'm sure. This is the kind of stupidity that shouldn't be aired in public. Maybe SAR not making the playoffs had a little something to do with his teams completely sucking. None of them get immediately better after he left, now did they?
Another epic fail. The Grizz got Pau Gasol, does that not ring a bell? The Grizz made a 22 game turnaround (The same number of games they won 2 years before SAR was traded) 2 years after they made the deal. They also won 45 and 49 games the years after that while the SAR performed his usual 3 good quarters 1 disappearing 4th in Atlanta. Let me repeat, he currently holds the record for most games played without a playoff appearance in NBA HISTORY. When you can hold a record of any kind in a league that's over 60 years you know that it's not just a coincidence.
Quote:
You mean the stupidity gets worse than you?
Apparently it does. But by all means continue, it is quite entertaining.
Zach Randolph and the Grizzlies?
Linear Mode
