"Come and touch it, Dave"

Um....wow.

New York Post: Knick slaped with sexual harassment suit

Knicks center Eddy Curry was slapped with a shocking sex-harassment suit Monday by his former driver, who claims the 6-foot-11 hoopster tried to solicit gay sex from him.

The stunning court papers claim Curry, a married father of three, repeatedly approached chauffeur David Kuchinsky "in the nude," allegedly telling him, "Look at me, Dave, look" and "Come and touch it, Dave."

Curry also made Kuchinsky perform "humiliating tasks outside the scope of his employment, such as cleaning up and removing dirty towels [Curry had ejaculated into] so that his wife would not see them," the Manhattan federal court suit says.

Not funny if it's true, possibly the funniest thing ever if it isn't. Also, congratulations go to any man who can sued a famous athlete and not ask for $500 billion in the process. Particularly one who may have seen Eddy Curry naked.

Dude. It's Zach Randolph.

ESPN: Knicks suggest dealing Randolph to Memphis

The Knicks have a trade proposal on the table with the Memphis Grizzlies that would see Darko Milicic and Marko Jaric dealt to New York in exchange for Zach Randolph.

OK, I get it. I do. I really do.

"Here, take Zach Randolph! Take this extremely talented player who just so happens to play at your weakest position! Nooooooo, we don't want anything back! You just take him!"

I get that. When your job is to improve your team, and you are offered a highly talented basketball player for essentially free, it's a tough one to turn down. And Zach Randolph really is highly talented.

But he's also Zach Randolph. And therein lies the problem.

For all of Zach's talents, his play has never been efficient, sensible, or highly profitable. Just by playing him, you lose an untold amount on defense, something which Randolph simply cannot do. And for all his versatility and skill as an offensive player, Zach has never had the sense or awareness to fit into an offense efficiently - Randolph is a career .465 shooter starting his offense from increasingly near the three point line, and with an intense aversion to passing. Bear in mind, this is a man once berated for selfishness by former teammate, Nick Van Exel. And Nick Van Exel knows a thing or two about selfishness.

The problem is exacerbated when looking at Memphis's other big men. Out of Hamed Haddadi, Hakim Warrick, Darrell Arthur, Marc Gasol and Antoine Walker, who represents a good pairing for Zach? Who is the weakside shotblocker to counteract Zach's complete failure in that area? There's a bit there, mainly coming from Gasol, but there's not much. Additionally, if Marc Gasol is to start at centre - and it looks like he has to - then how do you pair him and Randolph on offense? Pairing Randolph with a man who plays within 3 feet of the rim at all times (Eddy Curry) went painfully badly last season, so how much different will it be with Gasol? How does Zach fit?

Take a wider look at the roster, and the same applies. The Memphis roster is a symposium of good young talent and veterans that they're stuck with. In Rudy Gay and Orange Juice Mayonnaise (readers note: that joke wasn't funny, nor mine), the Grizzlies have two talented young scorers, and a roster rounded out with complimentary athleticism, defensive versatility and scoring talent. However, outside shooting remains a concern, and there remains a big hole at power forward. There's also a big rebounding hole on a team that was outrebounded by 2.9 boards a game last year, good for only 25th in the league.

Now Zach Randolph is a power forward all right, and he's constantly armed with a good rebounding rate. But if anyone expects him to come in and be primarily a rebounder, in the role that David Lee refused to fill, then they're either eternally optimistic, or privy to some blackmail that the rest of us aren't. No one has been able to convince Zach Randolph that his future lies in the post for a while now, and a year under the stewardship of Isiah Thomas is not good news for any player who struggles to understand their limitations.

The current reported trade talk sees Memphis giving New York nothing more than Marko Jaric and Darko Milicic. That is something, at least. Milicic is a player who has failed to pan out for three teams, and Marko is someone Memphis didn't want in the first place. The two players combine to earn $35,860,000 over the next three years, and they represent the two worst contracts that the Grizzlies have. (Readers note: Antoine Walker's contract is longer and bigger, but it's also fully unguaranteed beyond this year. And that's why Memphis wanted it in the first place. Same with Greg Buckner, sort of.) The next three years of Zach Randolph will pay him $48 million, and the cap hold for the first two years will be only a minor increase over what Darko and Marko currently take up. The only significant cap hit comes in the 2010/11 season, where Randolph will earn $17,333,333 to Jaric's $7,625,000, with Milicic already expired. But, as the Grizzlies have only 5 players under contract at that time, that isn't relevant of right now. The cost of obtaining Randolph is as low as it can be: two mostly insignificant bench players, who also have the franchise's two largest contracts.

But is that minimal price still too much for Zach Randolph?

It's a high risk move, clearly. But it's only a high reward move if the Zach Randolph of 2006/07 turns up, the one who put up a flawed but sexy 24 points and 10 rebounds a game. The one who wasn't as bad as usual on defense. The one who stayed largely in the post. The one who didn't complain too much. The one who was in the best shape of his life. The one who produced. To make this trade worthwhile, Memphis needs that Randolph back. But even after such a career best season, Portland were willing to trade him for nothing. Portland would rather pay Steve Francis $30 million to not turn up,rather than have even the good version of Randolph back. Warning sirens aplenty. If they get this Zach Randolph back, then they will be trading for the highest paid non-All Star of all time, and making a $48 million investment in a painful player with a painful contract and a temperamental history.

Risky. Too risky.

Will we ever see the better Randolph again? I don't know the answer, and I don't know about this trade. I get it, but......dude.

It's Zach Randolph.

30 teams in 36 or so days: New York

Players acquired via free agency or trade:

Zach Randolph (acquired from Portland)
Dan Dickau (acquired from Portland)
Fred Jones (acquired from Portland)



Players acquired via draft:

First round: Wilson Chandler (23rd overall)
Second round: Demetrius Nicholls (53rd overall, rights acquired from Portland, not yet signed)



Players retained:

Malik Rose (opted in)



Players departed:

Kelvin Cato (unsigned, largely inept)
Channing Frye (traded to Portland)
Steve Francis (traded to Portland)



Bobbins:

If he has not done so already, Isiah Thomas needs to write an autobiography. Actually, he needs to write about 3. One about his time as a player, one as a General Manager, and one for amusing miscellany. I can safely say without a shadow of a doubt that I would buy all three. Not even a moment's hesitation needed. And I think the same applies to about half of you. Maybe give him his own TV channel, and just run endless documentaries on him. I'd watch them. There's just too much fun yet inexplicable stuff going on at all times where Isiah Thomas is concerned.

Win or lose (but normally lose), these Isiah-led Knicks have been an absolute fixture at the top of the NBA's "sweet merciful crap, did you hear this?" listings. From the moment he took over, 'forfeiting' the 'future' of the franchise by trading for Stephon Marbury (the notion that Milos Vujanic constituted most of the Knicks future is still funny), Isiah has continued to dumbfound, amaze and amuse in equal measures. Whether it be by making the type of trade for which they had to invent their own category ("A Trade Only Isiah Could Make"), or for one of many stories that come out about him (such as his role in instigating the brawl against Denver, or wanting to kill Bill Simmons, which is the Tarantino film they never made but should have done), Thomas and the Knicks in general always seem to rustle up something with which to entertain. You can't help but disbelieve the roster moves that he makes, and you can't help but believe the stories that you hear about him. He's just that sort of person. Never say never with Isiah Thomas. (Or is that Mike Tyson? Hmmm. Anyway.)

This offseason, he went and did it again. Twice.

Apart from the occasional grumbling about potentially re-signing Allan Houston - a man Thomas tried to dump in any way possible when he first joined the Knicks, before Houston finally accepted a medical retirement, a decision he seemed to have reneged on - no news really comes out of Knicks land these days unless it's about the sexual harassment brought against Isiah by Zach Ra......err, Anucha Browne Sanders, former Knicks marketing vice president or something. Everything that I know about the subject has come directly from Bill Simmons's recap of the whole shebang, which answered many of my questions, but with two glaring omissions:

1) What the hell does Stephon Marbury have to do with any of this? What does his desire to cop some free ass have to do with her being fired for being crap at her job?
2) And who cares who called who a bitch? I dunno, maybe I'm just naive.

Either way, I'm not going into the subject further. There it is for you all to see.

Isiah's other storyline came before the start of the trial (which seems so long ago now), when he made the biggest headlines on draft night, trading Channing Frye, Steve Francis and a future second rounder to Portland for Zach Randolph, Dan Dickau, Fred Jones and the draft rights to Demetrius Nichols. With an overflowing roster, it is entirely possible that only one of those last three makes the team this season, or none if Allan Houston is signed. So they're not really factors here. Additionally, Francis was traded to Portland knowing that:

a) Portland would buy him out, and
b) Had New York been unable to deal him, they would have bought him out instead. Francis was merely salary filler.

The trade was essentially therefore just Frye for Randolph. When you put it that way, it sounds OK. But let's look a little deeper.

The Knicks of last year were a talented, but ill-fitting group of players, with a lot of distinct weaknesses to address. A very good rebounding team in spite of having Eddy Curry at center, the Knicks consistently had trouble defending the perimeter, ranking third last in the league in three point percentage against. They also turned it over way too much, ranking dead last in the league with 17.1 a game, whilst also ranking second last in blocked shots per game with 3.1, a mark bettered (or worsened) only by Milwaukee.

Now to get rid of Francis goes some way to helping with these deficiencies, particularly those of the turnover rate and offensive stagnificationness that the Knicks would go through at times last year. The offense revolved around force feeding Curry, who responded with almost 20 points a game, but it wasn't exactly the most inventive or successful strategy, and it was to cause problems whenever New York needed somewhere else to turn. Inefficient scoring from the perimeter players, plus the team-wide turnover woes, left New York as a one dimensional offensive team. And that offense was rather easy to nullify with a bit of common sense and flopping, as Chicago demonstrated on more than one occasion last year. When combined with New York's poor defense, it didn't make for a very promising lineup, which was reflected in their final record - New York ended up 32-50, firmly entrenched in the lottery. And they didn't get to keep their lottery pick, either. But you probably knew that already.

Why, then, did they decide Zach Randolph would somehow solve these problems?

While far from an exact clone of Eddy Curry, Randolph and he do share similar weaknesses. Both are poor defensive players, with mediocre at best man-to-man defense and abysmal help defense. Both players also turn it over way too often, stagnate the offense due to their lack of passing skill and passing desire, and are also almost exclusively to be found in the low post on offense (or that's where Randolph should be, at least). Also, New York has a relatively young core of players - is that really the kind of scenario in which you want to bring in Zach Randolph, Mr Locker Room Chemistry 2006?

Portland certainly didn't think so - they would rather pay Steve Francis $30 million to never ever turn up than they would have Randolph around their group of young players.

Then again, it's only Channing Frye, so maybe it was worth a flyer. Maybe it'll be so quirky that it works, in the same way that Rick Brunson is so bad that he's great. Maybe.

There's also the whole "is Marbury on crack?" thing to reflect upon, but I'm not sure I can think of anything interesting to say about it. However, in the extremely unlikely event that you have no idea what I'm talking about, watch this.

(And this.)



Next year:

One thing the Knicks on-court product of last season never lacked in was drama. If you were a Chicago fan rooting in your heart of hearts for the Knicks to lose (as was I), or just a Knick fan hoping in your heart of hearts that the Knicks would win, then you ran the full gambit of emotions throughout their season. Whether they won or lost, whether they were being blown out or were miles ahead, and whether they were playing a good team or a shit team, all Knicks games seemed to culminate with high drama finishes. Sometimes, they were on the winning end - see David Lee's tip in versus Charlotte, Eddy Curry's three pointer vs Milwaukee, or Steve Francis's three versus Washington. And sometimes, they were on the losing end, such as with Josh Howard's game saving block for Dallas early on, or Marbury's missed final second free throw versus Seattle.

Whatever the result, it made for some entertainment. And that's a good thing. This Knick team has got some fight, and some pride within them.

They just haven't got the ability, nor the cohesion.

The old saying goes that 'the whole is greater than the sum of the parts'. And it's true. San Antonio proves this adage time and again, continuing to win championships with only three legitimate NBA players (I'm exaggerating, but you get the idea). New York Knicks teams under Isiah's regime have proven much the same in the complete opposite way: continuing to add talented players time and again, it so far hasn't helped any, as the Knicks continue to miss the playoffs.

Next year figures to be no different. Adding an extremely gifted player who is the total package of talent, attitude and contract while solving none of the team's weaknesses and also consequently forcing arguably their best player to the bench doesn't seem like a winning formula to me. It sure as shit wasn't when Isiah tried it with Steve Francis, or Stephon Marbury, or Jalen Rose.

But, I guess we'll see. I'm a natural cynic, what would I know about anything anyway?

(Also, gambling tip for you gamblers out there - go and bet on Renaldo Balkman leading the Knicks in blocked shots per game next year. Because it's going to happen. And it's probably going to be around about 0.9 a game. Good fun.)

30 teams in 36 or so days: Chicago

Chicago

Players acquired via free agency or trade:

Joe Smith (2 years, $10 million)




Players acquired via draft:

First round: Joakim Noah (9th overall)
Second round: Aaron Gray (49th overall), JamesOn Curry (51st overall)



Players retained:

Andres Nocioni (re-signed, 6 years, $45 million)



Players departed:

Malik Allen (signed with New Jersey), Michael Sweetney (left unrestricted, unsigned), P.J. Brown (unsigned), Andre Barrett (made restricted, unsigned, may yet return), Martynas Andriuskevicius (left unrestricted, signed in Spain)





Bobbins:

(The following entry may well be written with a small hint of bias. Or, alternately, it may be written with huge seething dollops of it. I'm a Bulls fan, just so's you know.)

Has anybody ever told you that you need a dominant post scorer to win a title? If not, then you're not a Bulls fan. Since the dawn of time (or since the Eddy Curry trade, whichever), this edict has been hurled at Bulls fans and management alike by people of all races, creeds and IQ levels, and never more so than in the immediate aftermath of the Pau Gasol trade-that-never-was at the last trade deadline. Forget the fact that Detroit managed this supposedly impossible feat just three years ago: these people remain steadfast in their opinion. And why shouldn't they? People say it on the TV, after all, so it must be true.

After General Manager John Paxson did not pull the trigger on a deal for Gasol due to the excessive demands of Grizzlies GM Jerry West and the continued breakout of Luol Deng, talk of the Bulls need for a 'dominant' post scorer continued. "Experts" then shifted their attention to Kevin Garnett, ignoring for a moment the fact that such a move was never realistically possible due to the Bulls salary cap position. After that avenue also passed the Bulls by, people rolled their eyes, and widely discredited the Bulls offseason as something of a wash, given the lack of a big trade.

What seems to be overlooked, though, is that having a post up, back-to-the-basket scorer isn't nearly as important as having big men that can make shots. By that, I mean having big men that can hit shots from close in and mid range (or from further outside of possible). For example, in their championship seasons and ones subsequent, Detroit didn't have a dominant post scorer. They had an inside scoring weapon with Rasheed Wallace's fallaway from the post, but that accounted for about 6 points a game. What they did have was three offensively capable big men in Rasheed, Corliss Williamson and Mehmet Okur, who, despite being primarily face-up scorers, were scorers nonetheless, and whom could finish easy shots inside, even if they didn't create much down low. Additionally, the team with the most wins in the NBA last year (Dallas) does not have a post up scorer. They have a big man who is an elite scorer in Dirk Nowitzki, but that's a different thing altogether. (Note - I know they lost in the first round. But that's not why. They lost because they choked.)

In contrast, the Bulls last year had a slew of offensively inept big men. Their man options on that end where either the 41% shooting of reserve Malik Allen, who could only score via the pick and pop jumpshot, or P.J. Brown who had exactly the same issues going on. Failing that, they had either the amazing inconsistency of Michael Sweetney to turn to, or they could give shots to Tyrus Thomas, who could not consistently hit anything outside of dunks all year. And let's not mention Ben Wallace here, because we know what he's like. The Bulls hotchpotch of big men featured no one who could consistently make a layup and, apart from two decent mid-range shooters with nothing further to add, their big man offense constituted a whole lot of nothing. That is, unless you wish to include 6'7 outside shooter Andres Nocioni into the discussion. And that's hardly nullifying the issue right hurr.

But Chicago still did not need a post-up, slow-the-game-down interior scorer. If they could realistically obtain one for a decent price, then it would have been a move worth doing, as long as that player was not Zach Randolph (but hey, there'll be more on him in the Knicks post at a later date). However, they could not. And obtaining a second or third tier one such as Al Harrington or Shareef Abdur-Rahim just really was not bloody worth it.

What they needed was big men who could score the easy shots offered up within the flow, not get blocked by the rim, men who could break a zone defense, and who the guards could trust to pass to without their ears pricking up in anticipation of imminent danger.

Did they achieve this?

Well, not really. Not yet, anyway.

The Bulls did noticably upgrade their big men, though. Replacing the big bag of shite that was the holy foursome of Brown, Sweetney, Allen and Martynas Andriuskevicius was hard to do without upgrading, and therefore upgrade they did. Joakim Noah was drafted in the first round, a player who isn't particularly consistent offensively and who was drafted in front of Spencer Hawes (a superior interior scorer), but who was drafted there due to his superior all around game, which is something of a mantra for the Bulls. Joe Smith replaces the role P.J. Brown held last year, jigging around the mid range area looking for some jumpshots to clank, but who will do so with two added bonuses not previous brought by Brown: Smith is not completely immobile, and can get his layups above the rim. Aaron Gray offers very little offense, but you've never seen a man set backscreens better, And nobody replaces the spot once held by Andriuskevicius, so that's a net positive.

Additionally, another need was addressed with the drafting and signing of Jim Bob Curry. Behind the starters, the Bulls guards lacked offense and outside scoring. Every team needs a token chucker (see The Bench Player Handbook for more on that), and Curry provides Chicago with such a player. He won't play much, but if he does, he could help.

That, aside from re-signing Nocioni to a marginally oversized deal (but one necessarily so due to an alarming amount of open market interest: namely, one team, Memphis), was all that Chicago did. It's all that needed doing, really. Apart from signing Devin Brown, of course.




Next season:

While the Bulls changed basically all of their big man rotation, none of those players brought in are exceptional scorers. Joe Smith is a decent scorer, and Noah will be reasonably efficient in what few shots he takes. But while they have improved on the weakness of the previous season, it's not by a large amount. They still don't have a particularly adept group of offensive big men, and they didn't improve their wing players any. Then again, they didn't need to.

Improvement in this area has to come from within, namely from Tyrus Thomas, He, along with Ben Wallace, carries a load of the pressure in terms of how far the Bulls go this season. Both were inconsistent last season, Wallace due to a combination of nagging back/groin injuries and old age, and Thomas due to rookie rawness. Yet on the occasions that they played decent minutes together, the makings of a decent pairing were formed. Both are good passers and dribblers of the ball, fine rebounders and exceptional shotblockers, and the duo's versatility allows them to match up with any other frontcourt pairing out there - Wallace's strength and Thomas's speed being able to overcome any exaggeratedly-important height disparity. I may have made some words up there, but you get the idea.

The problem, though, was that neither could score well. And Thomas will have to be the one to correct that. It'd be more fun if it was Wallace that did, but......nah. I'm a gambling man, but I'm not taking those odds.

If Wallace is more consistent - or at least comparable to last year without any kind of gaping drop off - and if Thomas continues to develop his offensive game whist reining in the fouls, the duo has the ability to tip the Bulls fortunes over the top, in spite of neither being the mythical post up scorer that's apparently such a necessity. Chicago still retains their backcourt core to die for, with starters Hinrich, Gordon and Deng all still young and improving, and so it's the frontcourt that holds the key to the Bulls season.

Regardless, they're going to win the division. Blatantly. And then the East. And then the world. Maybe.