Submitted by confused, Sep 14, 2008 22:42

I'm confused. Randolph averaged 17 & 10 last year so I don't get the "it would be hard for him to play worse than he did a year ago" comment. I also don't get the "Randolph's boorish behavior" or the "another 'incident' that further stains his reputation" comments. Zach had no incident as a Knick, nor did he display any "boorish behavior" last year, at least not to my knowledge. The reason NY needs to get rid of him is his contract length and size, not because he can't play. He was easily more offensively versatile, a better rebounder, and even a better defender and passer than Eddy Curry. In a system like D'Antoni's, chuckers like Crawford and Randolph should excel, while their selfish shoot-first mentality might be detrimental in other more ridged offensive systems (like Jeff Van Gundy's). I like the fact that NY is FINALLY cutting salaries and rebuilding, but going to extremes just for the chance at signing single player isn't my favorite strategy. The one positive is that even if they don't get James the cap room and the accumulation of young talent should still be better than the path they are on now. I also thought the Balkman deal was one of the dumbest transactions ever. His contract was small, he is young, there are elements to his game that no other player can bring, and hard work like his should have been the foundation of the rebuilding process. All they have done so far is brought in more weak defending "bulk shooters" (chuckers) like Gallinari and Roberson, and made lateral moves, at best, like signing Duhon, when Collins is already on the roster, and trading for Ewing when Balkman was probably the better small forward/player.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.