6 of 7

Yes

Write now Article Tools

Looking at this deal strictly in a vacuum, this was an absolute steal for the New York Knicks. They attained a dominant-type power forward in a conference devoid of them. All they had to give up was a washed-up shooting guard stuck in a point guard's body making max money and a youngster who had yet to progress after an impressive rookie campaign.

Offensively, the Knicks can be a nightmare for opposing Eastern Conference coaches. While most teams have trouble containing ONE strong dominant big man, the Knicks now have two.

So why do I have a problem with the trade? Three reasons immediately come to mind.

Defensive

The Knicks were not a great defensive squad last year. Adding another plodding big man to a team that already has a plodding big man seems like a mistake, especially when the NBA is moving more towards a Phoenix-style brand of basketball. The Knick's "twin towers" simply are not going to be able to run with some of the quicker power forwards (the Dwight Howards) or stay with the smallish ones (like Shawn Marion). They could easily give up the points on defensive they are able to attain on offense.

Offensive

There is only so much room on the low post. While having two bigs is a matchup problem, it is not unsolvable. Zach Randolph does not compliment Eddy Curry's game; instead he sort of emulates it. Both are bigs who need the ball in their hands in the low post to be effective.

The question is, how are the Knicks really going to take advantage of this situation? Bigs work best when they are complimented with outside shooters (who can stretch the defense and negate double-teams) or slashers (who cut to the basket when their man leaves them to double). When Curry or Randolph get the ball in the low post, what exactly is the other player supposed to do? I can't see Randolph slashing to the basket, or Curry punishing teams for doubling by hitting even a mid-range jumper. This isn't Duncan and Robinson, polished players who had an outside shot and strong passing skills.

Cap flexibility

As I said before, looking at this trade in a vacuum it is obvious the Knicks came out on top. The problem is, that same logic could be used for nearly every Knick trade during the Isiah "administration." Thomas always gets the "best" player in any deal (Marbury, Tim Thomas, Curry, Steve Francis, etc.). What he always is willing to give up is money. If this was baseball, that wouldn't be a big deal. But in a sport that employs a cap, a team will

• 1
• 2
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Is Zach Randolph playing for the New York Knicks a bad idea??
We want to hear your view. Write now!