Steve Francis to the Knicks.

[Gordogg]

Highest paid backcourt in the NBA now, (Marbury, Francis). Seriously, what in the hell is Isiah Thomas trying to do here? He's constantly making moves and not making his team any better, just paying more money. Yes, Francis has talent. But he's one of those whiner crybaby types that never wins anything, just like Marbury. Chemistry is so important in the NBA. You cannot throw a bunch of egotistical talented players on the court and say, "Go win". It just doesn't work. You have to have players willing to pass the ball and do what's best for the TEAM.

Isiah, pull your head out of your ass and take notes on the Pistons, you know, the team you won two NBA championships with. Not that I care, I'm a Suns fan. I'd like to see some good basketball though, like in the Magic, Jordan, Bird era.

[Dodoubled]

While I think the whole team-first approach certainly worked with Detroit last year, I'd say the NBA is the one pro sports organization where you CAN win with a couple of talented guys.
More than any other sport, I think, the NBA is superstar-driven. It was Michael's Bulls, Magic's Lakers, Kareem's Lakers, Larry's Celtics, Bill's Celtics, Shaq and Kobe's Lakers, Hakeem's Rockets, Wilt's Sixers, Dr. J's Sixers ... all winners. People identify with a single player in this league more than any other. And while one might not get the job done anymore, two can make it tango. Can Marbury and Francis do it? Who knows.

Take baseball. When was the last time a superstar-driven team won a World Series? The Yankees? I digress. The 1996 and 1998 Yankees were largely homegrown, team-first players. The 1999 and 2000 Yankees had a few more superstars (namely, Clemens), but the 1998 and 1999 teams were nearly the same in personnel.

I'd be hard-pressed to believe a lineup that included Jorge Posada, Chuck "It's only a 60-foot-throw" Knoblauch, Scott Brosius and Chad Curtis (1999) and Ricky Ledee (2000) would be considered star-studded. There's a reason they haven't won anything in five years, even with the highest payroll in baseball on an annual basis. Meanwhile, the teams that have won recently -- Anaheim, Florida, Chicago, (OK, the Red Sox had some stars, but they're still not playing with the Yankees' deck) -- they're all team-oriented squads. And you can't identify any of those teams with a single player. Even the Red Sox. Was it Pedro's Sox? Schilling's Sox? Manny's Sox? Or, as I'm sure they'd have you believe in Boston -- Varitek's Sox?

An even better example is football. When was the last time a superstar carried a team to a title? Dallas? Sorry. Aikman and Emmitt were good, but it was the lines that made the Cowboys so dominant. Montana and Rice? ... Yeah, you could argue, I suppose, but they did have a defensive stalwart in Lott. ... I mean, I'm sure there are examples out there, but they're few and far between.

Admittedly, I know nothing about hockey. But that's another sport that really seems to reward punishing defenses and players willing to share the scoring load.

[PShabi]

Well said.

Thomas is gone in less than 6 months. Print it.

[Gordogg]

Dude, all the teams you are mentioning had more than what you are saying. The one exception is Michael's Bulls. He had Pippen. But Jordan is an exception to the rule. When you have the greatest basketball player in history on your team, you are gonna win some fuckin ballgames. Plus every team except the Bulls had a dominant center. Balance, chemistry, non egotistical assholes make championship teams. How can it be Magic and Kareems Lakers? Besides, there was a guy by the name of James Worthy on the team as well, ring a bell? Larry's Celetics? How about McHale and Parish, are they chop liver? There you go again with Shaq AND Kobe's Lakers. Shaq is one of the most dominant players in history, pair him, a CENTER, with arguably the best player in the NBA at the time and you are gonna win ballgames.

Comparing baseball to basketball is like apples and oranges. Everyone knows pitching wins championships, especially in the steroid era. You are talking about a 162 game grueling schedule compared to an 82 game season. A baseball team consisting of 25 players compared to a basketball team consisting of 12 players. So while you may have the Yankees hitting line up, which is just sick, you aren't going to win shit without pitching. In the NBA, you aren't going to win shit unless you have a dominating Center and great Guard, or a TEAM oriented personnel. This me first, let me travel my way to the basket and score attitude doesn't work. You have to actually PASS the ball to get the highest percentage shot. Not shoot 35 times a game like Iverson and while scoring a shitload of points, doesn't help your team win ballgames in the long run. The exception to the rule is Michael Jordan, but even he made the players around him better and was a TEAM player.

[Boobie Lover]

It is a well known fact that Isiah Thomas is the general manger of the New York Knickerbockers, but it is a well kept secret that he also manages Party Poker.

[Dodoubled]

Good points, all of them. And well taken. You have a very old-school, idealistic approach to the way basketball should be played. It's the right way ... learn to create points off the pass before relying on the dribble-drive. You'd make a great coach.
But pro basketball is still, in my opinion, a superstar-driven league first and a team-driven league second. There's little parity in the league, and that's due largely to the scarcity of quality big men. If you're lucky to have one, well, you're in the running right away. If not, then you better have an Allen Iverson-type to at least give your team a chance to score points. Oh, and in either case, you better have a suffocating defense. And that's where, I think, most NBA teams fall short, and where the team mentality has to come in.
You know how many times since 1980 that a team that won one title didn't come back within three years to win another? Twice. The Sixers won in 1983, and San Antonio, which served as a bookend for the Lakers' 3-peat squad, winning in 1999 and four years later, in 2003. Of course, the Spurs won two years after that. You get two great players in your five-man lineup, and it's like an insta-dynasty. That's where the league falls short, in my opinion.

With that said, I believe I have taken a detour off the originial Marbury-Francis topic. I apologize. I'm not going to sell it up the river, yet. Maybe the change of scenery, a new backcourt mate and a new coach can help corral the ego. Brown had mixed results with Iverson, so who knows?
Not like I'm gonna bet the house on it, though ...

[PShabi]

BWAhahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GTDawg]

I think Thomas is doing this on purpose. He is running the team in to the ground because he wants to destroy the current basketball climate.

In two years, he will return with short-shorts in tow and lead the team to a title with the help of Ewing and Willis Reed.

There is no other explanation.

[GeoffM]

This trade makes no sense for the Knicks, and the Magic made a solid deal. The Knicks now have 2 ball hogs in the backcourt, the Magic just trimmed a sizeable amount of cap from their books next season. Isiah, what a dumbass.

[Gordogg]

The truth is Isiah doesn't know how to put together a franchise. If I remember correctly, he bought or gm'd a team in the CBA and ran it into the ground, not on purpose, just because he sucks at General Managing. Great basketball player though.

Correction: He bought the whole CBA and ran it into the ground wit his over spending. Hmmm, Knicks have the highest payroll in the league and are in last place, I see a pattern here.

[jillaj]

Just 2 is an understatement. They have Jamal Crawford,Marbury, Francis, and Q Richardson who are shoot first guards. They have the most dysfunctional team in NBA history.