hey guys.

im bored at work and hate not having the newsgroups available at home
anymore....so i'll pass along a rumor i just read on some bloggers site.
make of it what you will.

according to the blog, the knicks are talking to the cavs and sending
zach randolph for either sczerbiac (sp?) or ben wallace.

either another offensively inept big man, or a great shooter who does
little else.

both sound like a perfect fit for d'antoni's system.....

ben's contract works for target-2010...not sure about wally.

discuss.

or not. whatever.

lee

On Aug 19, 2:36 pm, Lee Watkins <lwatkins.nos...@nospam.juno.com>
wrote:
> hey guys.
>
> im bored at work and hate not having the newsgroups available at home
> anymore....so i'll pass along a rumor i just read on some bloggers site.
> make of it what you will.
>
> according to the blog, the knicks are talking to the cavs and sending
> zach randolph for either sczerbiac (sp?)

It's spelled "Schzczczczczqqqqqerbiak".

or ben wallace.
>
> either another offensively inept big man, or a great shooter who does
> little else.
>
> both sound like a perfect fit for d'antoni's system.....
>
> ben's contract works for target-2010...not sure about wally.

Both would be salary dump sitches. I think Wally expires this year.
I've heard some rumors involving Curry as well. I'd rather Wally since
he could prolly be cut outright. Ben's been causin' some problems
lately because and he really seems to have lost it.

Capn'O wrote:

> It's spelled "Schzczczczczqqqqqerbiak".

It is spelled "Wally Who"

"Lee Watkins" <lwatkins.nospam@nospam.juno.com> wrote in message
news:g8f3sa$6c5$1@news.tamu.edu...
> hey guys.
>
> im bored at work and hate not having the newsgroups available at home
> anymore....so i'll pass along a rumor i just read on some bloggers site.
> make of it what you will.
>
> according to the blog, the knicks are talking to the cavs and sending zach
> randolph for either sczerbiac (sp?) or ben wallace.
>
> either another offensively inept big man, or a great shooter who does
> little else.
>
> both sound like a perfect fit for d'antoni's system.....
>
> ben's contract works for target-2010...not sure about wally.
>
> discuss.
>
> or not. whatever.
>
> lee
Just what we need. Big Snacks part II or ANOTHER player who thinks O first.
I guess out of the two, Wallace probably makes the most sense. He still has
the occasional 20 board 5 block game.

On Aug 19, 2:36 pm, Lee Watkins <lwatkins.nos...@nospam.juno.com>
wrote:

> ben's contract works for target-2010...not sure about wally.

Yep, both are perfect...Wally's gone after this year. We just drafted
a power forward with "offensive versatility" and "starting prowess" --
hey, that should tide us over fine in the meantime. Bring on the old
guys. Sayonara, Zach.

On Aug 19, 7:02 pm, "Terraholm" <TerraholmSPAM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Capn'O wrote:
> > It's spelled "Schzczczczczqqqqqerbiak".
>
> It is spelled "Wally Who"

Or "Where's Wally?"

On Aug 20, 8:38 am, "Glenn Greenstein" <glen.jack...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:

> Just what we need. Big Snacks part II or ANOTHER player who thinks O first.
> I guess out of the two, Wallace probably makes the most sense. He still has
> the occasional 20 board 5 block game.

Forest. Trees.

Salary cap. Short term suckage for long term possibilities of
greatness vs. 30-win mediocrity forever. Get it. Finally. Please.

"Noah" <dontsendmeyerspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:54fca83a-94bb-4545-bf10-948fb5e7710b@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 20, 8:38 am, "Glenn Greenstein" <glen.jack...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:

> Just what we need. Big Snacks part II or ANOTHER player who thinks O
> first.
> I guess out of the two, Wallace probably makes the most sense. He still
> has
> the occasional 20 board 5 block game.

Forest. Trees.

Salary cap. Short term suckage for long term possibilities of
greatness vs. 30-win mediocrity forever. Get it. Finally. Please.

How exactly does this not work cap wise.
The Wallace contract runs 2 more seasons and then he is gone while Zachs
runs beyond that and is for more money. This move actually will lower the
cap # after next season and then Wallace becomes a FA and Zach contract is
off the books for 2010/11 season. The Knicks will not resign him.
I am just stating out of the two, he is my preference because we already
have a bunch of shot first players.
Are you just posting this to be argumentative?
This is actually a win win for both teams. We get cap space, and Cleveland
gets the post player they need to compete.

"Noah" <dontsendmeyerspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d4fb810e-724c-4f81-bceb-7d97d6fce3b0@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 19, 2:36 pm, Lee Watkins <lwatkins.nos...@nospam.juno.com>
wrote:

> ben's contract works for target-2010...not sure about wally.

Yep, both are perfect...Wally's gone after this year. We just drafted
a power forward with "offensive versatility" and "starting prowess" --
hey, that should tide us over fine in the meantime. Bring on the old
guys. Sayonara, Zach.

So now it's a good deal?
Are you schizoid?

On Aug 21, 8:56 am, "Glenn Greenstein" <glen.jack...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:

> Are you just posting this to be argumentative?

No, I like the idea of the trade, as posted elsewhere. I was
responding to this complaint:

> > Just what we need. Big Snacks part II or ANOTHER player who thinks O
> > first.

On Aug 21, 8:59 am, "Glenn Greenstein" <glen.jack...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:

> Are you schizoid?

Are you?

"Noah" <dontsendmeyerspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba8f0278-f853-4c68-93a6-f9f25da42e69@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 21, 8:56 am, "Glenn Greenstein" <glen.jack...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Are you just posting this to be argumentative?
>
> No, I like the idea of the trade, as posted elsewhere. I was
> responding to this complaint:
>
>> > Just what we need. Big Snacks part II or ANOTHER player who thinks O
>> > first.
>
>
Pardon me then. It appeared you were critical of my choice between the two.

On Aug 21, 12:14 pm, "Glenn Greenstein"
<glen.jack...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> "Noah" <dontsendmeyers...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ba8f0278-f853-4c68-93a6-f9f25da42e69@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...> On Aug 21, 8:56 am, "Glenn Greenstein" <glen.jack...@worldnet.att.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Are you just posting this to be argumentative?
>
> > No, I like the idea of the trade, as posted elsewhere.  I was
> > responding to this complaint:
>
> >> > Just what we need. Big Snacks part II or ANOTHER player who thinks O
> >> > first.
>
> Pardon me then. It appeared you were critical of my choice between the two.

Pardoned. I assumed it was clear from many previous diatribes (for
many years) on the subject that I believe the focus should be on the
future right now and not the present. What happens now, in my mind,
doesn't really matter because the team has almost no hope of being
genuinely competitive as currently constructed. What's important is
to clean it out as quickly as possible so it can get back to being
competitive. Arguing over which bad piece we get back for another bad
piece for the current team is a waste of time, in my opinion. It
doesn't really matter what we send out right now -- they are not going
to win. What matters is taking out the trash, not how the trash might
be arranged around the room in the meantime so the stink isn't as
perceptible. Hopefully my position on these matters is clear for now
and for future discussions so there isn't so much confusion.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:52:32 -0700 (PDT), Noah
<dontsendmeyerspam@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Aug 21, 12:14 pm, "Glenn Greenstein"
><glen.jack...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> "Noah" <dontsendmeyers...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ba8f0278-f853-4c68-93a6-f9f25da42e69@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...> On Aug 21, 8:56 am, "Glenn Greenstein" <glen.jack...@worldnet.att.net>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> Are you just posting this to be argumentative?
>>
>> > No, I like the idea of the trade, as posted elsewhere.  I was
>> > responding to this complaint:
>>
>> >> > Just what we need. Big Snacks part II or ANOTHER player who thinks O
>> >> > first.
>>
>> Pardon me then. It appeared you were critical of my choice between the two.
>
>Pardoned. I assumed it was clear from many previous diatribes (for
>many years) on the subject that I believe the focus should be on the
>future right now and not the present. What happens now, in my mind,
>doesn't really matter because the team has almost no hope of being
>genuinely competitive as currently constructed. What's important is
>to clean it out as quickly as possible so it can get back to being
>competitive. Arguing over which bad piece we get back for another bad
>piece for the current team is a waste of time, in my opinion. It
>doesn't really matter what we send out right now -- they are not going
>to win. What matters is taking out the trash, not how the trash might
>be arranged around the room in the meantime so the stink isn't as
>perceptible. Hopefully my position on these matters is clear for now
>and for future discussions so there isn't so much confusion.

Its clear to me....

Noah:

> the team has almost no hope of being genuinely competitive as currently
> constructed.

This team, carefully constructed by Isiah Lord Thomas III and handed over to
D' in working order, will shock everyone this season. Mark my words.

DG

On Aug 21, 9:45 pm, Dan Gaters <dan.gat...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Noah:
>
> > the team has almost no hope of being genuinely competitive as currently
> > constructed.
>
> This team, carefully constructed by Isiah Lord Thomas III and handed overto
> D' in working order, will shock everyone this season. Mark my words.
>
> DG

with what? cattle prods? :)