[Showtyme]

Q:In the New York Times, they reported you were interested in acquiring players like Jamal Crawford and Rasheed Wallace. Can you talk about this report and your ultimate vision for the Knicks' roster?

Thomas: "We are always looking to improve our roster in any way possible and will go wherever we can to do so. We have made some strides in that area but it doesn't make sense to speculate on speculation."

http://www.nba.com/features/thomas_040128.html

I don't like being super nit-picky, and he could be talking about EITHER Crawford or Wallace, and it certainly makes sense that he'd be after Wallace more than Crawford, since they just acquired Marbury to be Isaiah's crowned PG, but...

"We have made some strides in that area..."

Sounds like he's not done. Is there a New York trade that is good out there?

I can't think of one. I would have liked Lampe from them if they kept him. Frank Williams is a good home-state talent, and I'd be happy turning ERob + Fizer into KVH, but that's too big of a makeover and it seems like Marbury and Van Horn are doing okay.

 

[futuristxen]

He has been pretty evasive about what he's going to do in all of the interviews I've seen.

He has nothing to gain by harping on his desire to get Crawford or Wallace. It just drives up the price. We already know he inquired about Crawford from Paxson. Pax told him he didn't want anything on New York's roster. So that's where it stands.

What do you think?

 

[truebluefan]

and Thomas was alledgedly given a list of SF that Pax would want. I guess nothing can be worked now, for now.

 

[ATLien]

All GM's avoid questions like that..... they have to.

 

[futuristxen]

Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
and Thomas was alledgedly given a list of SF that Pax would want. I guess nothing can be worked now, for now.

If he could work something out, do you really think he would choose to reveal it on NBA.com? Especially if a third team is involved?

I just don't see the suprise in how he answered the question. In general that's the same type of answeres we'd hear from just about any GM who was asked about speculation.

 

[Showtyme]

Nah. They usually have a direct yes or no answer in their heads, and then they try to cleverly politicize it so that it falls nearer to the middle.

For instance, if the answer was "NO we don't want Crawford or Wallace", the response might sound more like:

"We're pretty happy with what we've done so far. If there are more moves out there to be made, of course, then I will be watching for more opportunities to improve this team. But what we've done so far seems to be working out well."

If the answer was "YES, we do want Crawford or Wallace", the answer would be more like:

"There's always more improvement to be had. Interesting players remain good opportunities, and you can be sure that we won't miss them."

If the answer was middling, I think we'd get the answer that we got. While it's true that most GM's ARE middling about Crawford, I don't think it's what you can call the "standard" GM answer for every player. If you asked Isaiah, "Are you interested in Vin Baker or Jahidi White?" I think the answer would have sounded significantly different.

So yes, and no.

John Paxson preceeding the Raps trade:

"The team is underperforming and we have to find ways to win, period. I am not satisfied with the team’s start this season and changes have to be made. This represents the first change, but not necessarily the last.”

Statements like that are on the super "YES" side of trade, but you see what I mean. I don't think Isaiah's answer was just totally typical, otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up. I don't think I'm making something out of nothing.