Curry Wants To Be Drafted By Knicks

[Naan]

And i will say once again, who on this site believes that the addition of Curry and loss of nate will make us a playoff team?? huh?? anyone?? no I didnt think so. Curry is as soft as a baby's bottom, and we will be pathetic on defense yet again. We'll be in the lottery without a pick>> that will do wonders luring LBJ from Cleveland.

We might not be a playoff team with Curry and without Nate, but we will win more games. Curry is the clutch closer that is not afraid to take over down the stretch. How many close games did the Knicks lose this season? The team certainly was not a playoff contender without Nate, especially when he became inconsistent during the crucial games we counted on him the most.

Truthfully, only the top two choices have the ability to have immediate impacts on their team. A wide variety of talent should have stayed in school or overseas an extra year. Unfortunately, we are without a pick next year. Fortunately, we at least have some choice because numerous players have decided it is time for the leap. What I hope is us fans learn patience because after we made the cap-saving trades early last season, it was undoubtedly going to be a gruesome road to 2010. If we're discussing luring LeBron, Curry has more of a connection because the two men share the same agent and LeBron has attended the kid's games and thrown support his way publicly.

[MrMajik2]

I think Duhon should be traded for a late 1st or 2nd rounder, re-sign Nate to 2-3m/yr, AND draft Curry. We can sign a vet PG to the minimum. Problem solved.

[cragganmor]

Watcher's point that we were a very good offensive team (4th at 105 ppg) is a good point, we scored but our problem was defense and toughness. Other teams had such an easy time getting into the lane and making easy shots that we could shoot 50% at the half and still be behind the other team in points.

The only way we will improve in the W-L column is to make other teams work for their points. We don't have to play lockdown D like the '92 team, but we could take a few lessons in toughness from the smashmouth Rileyball era.

DeJuan Blair is the one guy that has the requisite toughness and leadership to change our soft interior D. The comparisons to Elton Brand are a bit off because EB is 6'8" 250#, while Blair is 6'7" and 280#; the guy is certainly big enough to play C.

Naz called Blair part of a passing fad. I have to disagree. Big Baby's success in the playoffs isn't a fad, neither was Paul Milsap's performance all season, Brandon Bass is a key part of Dallas' resurgence in the playoffs and what do you call Carl Landry's play against the Lakers? All of them fit that undersized PF or C mold, but have found ways to contribute strongly.

The league is getting softer overall and every good team needs at least 1 bruiser, an intimidator. We lacked that last season and watched a parade of layups and dunks, if we get an interior presence, we could improve by a dozen games this year; that would put us over .500 and squarely land us in the playoffs.

[big_j_NY]

Watcher's point that we were a very good offensive team (4th at 105 ppg) is a good point, we scored but our problem was defense and toughness. Other teams had such an easy time getting into the lane and making easy shots that we could shoot 50% at the half and still be behind the other team in points.

The only way we will improve in the W-L column is to make other teams work for their points. We don't have to play lockdown D like the '92 team, but we could take a few lessons in toughness from the smashmouth Rileyball era.

DeJuan Blair is the one guy that has the requisite toughness and leadership to change our soft interior D. The comparisons to Elton Brand are a bit off because EB is 6'8" 250#, while Blair is 6'7" and 280#; the guy is certainly big enough to play C.

Naz called Blair part of a passing fad. I have to disagree. Big Baby's success in the playoffs isn't a fad, neither was Paul Milsap's performance all season, Brandon Bass is a key part of Dallas' resurgence in the playoffs and what do you call Carl Landry's play against the Lakers? All of them fit that undersized PF or C mold, but have found ways to contribute strongly.

The league is getting softer overall and every good team needs at least 1 bruiser, an intimidator. We lacked that last season and watched a parade of layups and dunks, if we get an interior presence, we could improve by a dozen games this year; that would put us over .500 and squarely land us in the playoffs.

The way I see it, if we decide to go for Blair.......David Lee is gone.

The way I see it, the problem with our defense, aside from toughness, is front court size. It's too fucking small........even tho this is D'Antoni's system, our defense cannot live with undersized big men any longer. We need to find some size to clog the lane and contest shots in the middle. Blair's toughness is great, and he's got a solid wingspan........but he ain't stopping Dwight Howard, Andrew Bynum or any other 7 footer with a great offensive skillset, nor will Blair be able to stop easy lay-ups. He may have a long wing-span and a strong body.........but that ain't gonna stop any slasher from driving into the paint. Regardless of how tough Blair is, his lack of size will only get him in more foul trouble than regular 6'10" or 7' big men, if he tries to contest shots from slashing guards and swingmen. We still need a legit big man to clog the middle and contest shots next to a DeJuan Blair or a David Lee to stop the bleeding defensively.

We cannot live with small front courts any longer........this ain't the 90s NBA, we need shot-blockers in the middle now.

[taowave]

Watcher,I like Nate,but he appears to have a bit too much A.I in him at this point in his career.

Nate,like A.I. is a great talent,but there is no way Dantoni builds a team around an undersized pg who doesnt make his teamates better...

As for the addition of Curry/loss of Nate,I will answer a question with a question..

Did you believe that Denver would become a freight train with the loss off A.I. and the addition of Billups???

Simply put,Nate needs to grow up,and grow up fast...

no, I love the 7 second or less offense. Wanting defensive players with talent doesnt necessarily mean I want a half-court team. Thats a false conclusion. I gave DAntoni the benifit of the doubt till he exchanged Balk for Roberson...that showed his commitment to d.
And i will say once again, who on this site believes that the addition of Curry and loss of nate will make us a playoff team?? huh?? anyone?? no I didnt think so. Curry is as soft as a baby's bottom, and we will be pathetic on defense yet again. We'll be in the lottery without a pick>> that will do wonders luring LBJ from Cleveland.

[thewatcher]

thanks cragg...bigj, yes we were too small, both in height and strength. defense and rebounding need addressing to get the maximum improvement. I dont think the answer to getting bigger is necessarily dropping Lee, one of our biggest players and one of the leagues best rebounders.

Blair has the strength to push bigs out of their comfort zones. willis and Unseld did that to Wilt and Kareem to pretty good effect once long ago. Again, moving Chandler permamnently to the SG SF position also makes us tougher and better defensively.

Tao, the question is "what makes Nate tick?" why did he drop off and go nuts after the great run when Duhon was reinserted to the starting line-up and we were blown out by NJ, eliminating any serious playoff chances?

I think he felt disrespected by the management and the deflation just sapped him of his remaining strength and control. I BELIEVE WITH A MORE DEFINED RIOLE, THE SECURITY OF A CONTRACT, AND THE ADDITION OF THE 2010 SUPERSTAR NATE WILL BE GALVINIZED TO PLAY MORE CONSISTENTLY WELL.

[big_j_NY]

Blair has the strength to push bigs out of their comfort zones. willis and Unseld did that to Wilt and Kareem to pretty good effect once long ago. Again, moving Chandler permamnently to the SG SF position also makes us tougher and better defensively.

That still ain't stopping easy layups tho.........Blair can do so much to solve our answers defensively in the paint, but not even our 90s Knicks would have succeeded if Charles Oakley was playing Center instead of Patrick Ewing.......and we know Oak's shot-blocking wasn't one his many strengths.

Increasing a perimeter defense would be a smart way to mask that, but we'd need a Shawn Marion-like player at either the PF or the SF spot to make that possible. As I could remember, one of the reasons why Phoenix was successful without Amare Stoudmire manning the middle was b/c Shawn Marion was anchoring the Sun's defense.........FROM THE PERIMETER. Wilson Chandler can only do so much in that department, but he's not the Matrix. There were no "non-jump shooting" big men on that squad, and if there was........they were on the bench.

So if we're gonna draft DeJuan Blair, why would you pay $6-$10 mill a year for David Lee to sit on the bench or draft Blair just to sit on the bench? Wouldn't that sound fiscally illogical to pay that much money for a bench player? Especially since we're aiming for cap flexibility in 2010.

[Sundov=NextMJ]

the more i think about it, the more i want lawson instead of curry. Size is not really a problem for paul, nate or brooks so i dont think its gonna be much of a problem for lawson.

[cragganmor]

Jon Givony on a podcast gave a strong recommendation on DeJuan Blair as a guy that was moving up the board and looking very impressive in workouts, also chimed in that the playoffs this year have been all about toughness and strength.

[nazrmohamed]

no, I love the 7 second or less offense. Wanting defensive players with talent doesnt necessarily mean I want a half-court team. Thats a false conclusion. I gave DAntoni the benifit of the doubt till he exchanged Balk for Roberson...that showed his commitment to d.
And i will say once again, who on this site believes that the addition of Curry and loss of nate will make us a playoff team?? huh?? anyone?? no I didnt think so. Curry is as soft as a baby's bottom, and we will be pathetic on defense yet again. We'll be in the lottery without a pick>> that will do wonders luring LBJ from Cleveland.

your not understanding the point, its not the ideas of swapping Nate for Curry and thats it. Its swapping Nate for Curry, spending about 30% of Nates desired salary and then using the rest toward a player that COULD help us get to the playoffs. Or if you want to be frugal using those funds toward someone in 2010. And it might not be a matter of just letting Nate walk either, even if you'd consider Nate and Curry a lateral move it still then allows you to resign Nate only to then trade him in order to remove Jared Jeffries in a trade. So fast forward to 6mos from now ( forget even 2010). You can say that in the last 6 mos you were able to unload Jeffries contract and although you had to use Nate to do it, you were able to somewhat replace Nates production at a lower price. Due to these reductions from our payroll we were also able to spend alittle on a good veteran player that might make us just good enough for the 8th or 7th seed. That player for me is Andre Miller. Midlevel, less than the midlevel whatever. It could very well be less but my point is that in the grand scheme of things. Andre Miller is gonna have a greater impact on whether we win or lose this next season than Nate. Its inconsequential whether Curry is better than Nate next yr becuase without our draft pick getting Miller wouldnt be possible.
And frankly I think Curry could be close. Its not like if we had Miller Curry would be expected to do anything more than score right away. To me if you gave him the same greenlight as Nate off the bench we should expect about 80% of Nates production in Curry's first season with half of the boneheaded plays and far less people standing around. Lets be serious, we couldnt even make the eigth seed last season, if there was a 9th seed we wouldnt even have made that. There isnt a single guy in this locker room that should stop me from getting real starting caliber talent besides Gallo and Chandler, Lee and Nate have had thier chance. So instead of forever linking Curry to Nate, link Nate with Miller and then view Curry as a decent replacement. And I'm just talking first yr here, not Curry's yr 3 where he could supposedly still be growing and is used to the league and trained in PG skills.

[Don Che]

Curry is already smarter/better PG/shooter then Nate is.

Thing is...Nate is a far superior athlete then Curry will ever dream to be.

[thewatcher]

Curry is already smarter/better PG/shooter then Nate is.

Thing is...Nate is a far superior athlete then Curry will ever dream to be.

I like curry a lot. But the most difficult part of watching last season was the no-defense. The way Kobe, LeBron and Wade broke records and were just skipping through our defense bothered me. If we could find some way to get Blair and Terrance Williams it would be totally different Nate can do enough, sure Id like Curry, but we will only rapidly impove with some tough mean bastards. And I still want to run.

[cragganmor]

I like curry a lot. But the most difficult part of watching last season was the no-defense. The way Kobe, LeBron and Wade broke records and were just skipping through our defense bothered me. If we could find some way to get Blair and Terrance Williams it would be totally different Nate can do enough, sure Id like Curry, but we will only rapidly impove with some tough mean bastards. And I still want to run.

Both guys are physically NBA-ready, will not have to "wait for them to grow stronger" like many of the power-waifs like Anthony Randolph, etc. They can step right in and be part of the rotation to give you effort and defense from the first game, then figure out the intricacies of getting their shots to fall. I might substitute Danny Green for T-Will, as Green has a pretty good J and was generally recognized as the best perimeter defender in the ACC, he's also a local kid from Bethpage, LI.

And as you noted, if you get these type of players, you can make a case for keeping Nate, as we would now have players that are complimentary to his game.

[taowave]

Watcher,that is the most daming statement of Nate I could think of...

If he was a true professional and was of sound mind,he would NEVER "drop off and go nuts",regardless of the circumstances.

I like Nate,but as I said he needs to grow up or get out.

Its one thing to have your power foward be bonkers ala Rodman or your best defender(Artest),but your point guard must be your floor general and lead.He needs to be in control.Nate has clearly demonstrated he currently does not possess those qualities...

Tao, the question is "what makes Nate tick?" why did he drop off and go nuts after the great run when Duhon was reinserted to the starting line-up and we were blown out by NJ, eliminating any serious playoff chances?

I think he felt disrespected by the management and the deflation just sapped him of his remaining strength and control. I BELIEVE WITH A MORE DEFINED RIOLE, THE SECURITY OF A CONTRACT, AND THE ADDITION OF THE 2010 SUPERSTAR NATE WILL BE GALVINIZED TO PLAY MORE CONSISTENTLY WELL.

[nazrmohamed]

Watcher's point that we were a very good offensive team (4th at 105 ppg) is a good point, we scored but our problem was defense and toughness. Other teams had such an easy time getting into the lane and making easy shots that we could shoot 50% at the half and still be behind the other team in points.

The only way we will improve in the W-L column is to make other teams work for their points. We don't have to play lockdown D like the '92 team, but we could take a few lessons in toughness from the smashmouth Rileyball era.

DeJuan Blair is the one guy that has the requisite toughness and leadership to change our soft interior D. The comparisons to Elton Brand are a bit off because EB is 6'8" 250#, while Blair is 6'7" and 280#; the guy is certainly big enough to play C.

Naz called Blair part of a passing fad. I have to disagree. Big Baby's success in the playoffs isn't a fad, neither was Paul Milsap's performance all season, Brandon Bass is a key part of Dallas' resurgence in the playoffs and what do you call Carl Landry's play against the Lakers? All of them fit that undersized PF or C mold, but have found ways to contribute strongly.
The league is getting softer overall and every good team needs at least 1 bruiser, an intimidator. We lacked that last season and watched a parade of layups and dunks, if we get an interior presence, we could improve by a dozen games this year; that would put us over .500 and squarely land us in the playoffs.

Now which one of these players is an integral part of thier team. I agree that any team could use one of these guys, even us. But I think you are overestemating thier impact. You are leveraging thier success as bench players as to why we should use a end of the lottery draft pick on a player just like them......except even that is questionable because while Milsap, Bass and Landry did it against some of the best young players in the nba who will be stars of our league someday, Blair is doing it, or didi it against one player who in another thread we'll say is a substandard pick himself. See the point?. Blair might be a second rounder in last yrs draft. Now I understand if its shitty you still gotta draft someone but if thats the case draft based on potential. Guys who may look worse than Blair now but at least have a good chance of being better than him maybe 2 yrs down the line.

[knicksfan4life]

Naz, those guys may not make huge impacts (aside from Millsap who I think is one of the most underrated players in all of ball) but the fact is that they do contribute and show that players that size can contribute. Combine that with the fact that Blair is way better than any of those guys and you have yourself a player. I wouldn't oppose getting Blair but still think Curry or Lawson are better fits. Ultimately, I think Donnie finds a way to get Rubio, as the Knicks have him rated above even Blake Griffin on their board.

[cragganmor]

I would still maintain that Blair has more upside, having just turned 20 and has achieved far more than Milsap, Haslem, Landry, Bass. etc at the NCAA level. He's got a lot more size than any of them is physically NBA-ready to bang from day 1.

Blair will be a much better pro than a whole bunch of 6'10", 36" vertical leap, athletic stringbeans. Don't take my word for it; Jon Givony, Steve Kyler and Chad Ford, who have all watched him work out at IMG, are in agreement that he's a legit pro prospect and quickly moving up the draft board as a guy that will bring toughness and a pro mentality as a rookie.

[knicksfan4life]

Plus, Blake Griffin is probably 6'8 himself so if Blair being 6'7 is a problem, why isn't Griffin's heigh a problem? Griffin put up ridiculous numbers, but so did Blair and Blair might be the superior defender. He dominated the best conference in America and played very well head to head the most dominant center in America all season (Thabeet). He didn't have a chance to play vs. NBA players last year, but he did do awfully well vs the best players college has to offer. So at 8, Blair isn't a bad pick when you compare him ot the other people that will be there at 8, they all come with questions. People are talking about picking Brandon Jennings based on upside, but have these people seen Jennings play? He dominated in HS, not vs. NBA players himself, than he struggled in Europe again not vs. NBA players, so if Blair has to prove himself vs. NBA players without being in the league why does Jennings get a free pass? Despite proving nothing at a level higher than HS. I'd rather take a guy and know what I'm getting than some dude who's got "upside" and may pan out, because in this league everyone has upside it's just a matter of if it's reached Blair has been more steadily progressing towards his "upside" than many other mentioned.

[nazrmohamed]

nope, just read an article that addresses Griffens height and wether or not he like other prospects fudge the hieghts. Basically it is fudged but when they said he's 6'10 thats with shoes, he actually is 6'9.25 in socks and 6'10 in shoes. True height.

[thewatcher]

Watcher,that is the most daming statement of Nate I could think of...

If he was a true professional and was of sound mind,he would NEVER "drop off and go nuts",regardless of the circumstances.
I like Nate,but as I said he needs to grow up or get out.

Its one thing to have your power foward be bonkers ala Rodman or your best defender(Artest),but your point guard must be your floor general and lead.He needs to be in control.Nate has clearly demonstrated he currently does not possess those qualities...]

Tao, nate's game is predicated on emotion, you make it sound as if he "drop-off" was voluntary. I think his potential is more reflected by his 20 game stretch which was only ended by, demotion back to the spark-plug role after Duhons return from injury. DAntoni's wishfull thinking "that we were better with Duhon starting", and by our by inlarge elimination from serious playoff contention after NJ blew us out. These conditions would all create natural let-downs in any player, much less a player dependent on emotion like Nate. He sucked in garbage-tank mode, I cant say I like that, but i also understand why it happened. Nate needs the competition of meaningful games. Thats ok.