I would be scared to increase his role as an offensive player though because of his lack of efficiency though when he is only carrying a 54.7 TS% on a usg of 17%. That is not that high. What you have to hope is that he can become a better 3pt shooter or/and get to the line more.

All that being said. Chandler Parsons got the max so it is more than likely that Green will too. Green max is actually more than Parsons since it is 25% of a higher Cap. When you get paid more you are expected to have an impact relative to your price. Can Draymond up his game more on offense? The ability to get to the line will be the key and not only get to the line but shoot a good percentage there.

P.S. now that you made this thread is every other thread Green safe?

Usually in the deep post and mid/high post

It is usually hitting the open man but it could really be any of these players that they can run an offense through

1- Curry/Klay

2- Bogut/Green

3- Speights/ Iggy/Lee

4- Livingston

Also any of these guys will also play off the ball as well

Knixkik wrote:If green came here with max expectations you guys would eat him alive. No way he would survive as a core player the way Melo and others over the years have been treated. He just couldn't put up the numbers and have the impact people would ask of him.

That is your opinion, I have no problem with it, as I do not know if you watch the games or not

But

Make your pick, state your opinions, and I will bring this back up in a couple of years

For those, even if I am wrong or right, please do not ever make a comment if you do not state your opinion here and make a pick, years down the road

I do not believe CA is a franchise player to build around however, if their is a possiblity to acquire a player that can hide his weakness and bring the qualities that he lacks, Draymond Green is it...

Name me another SF/PF that could fill in to play with CA and FIT plaing both SF and PF, and be able to play quality defense on both positions?
Name me another "role player" that has triple double threats with a pair of blocks and steals each....

TripleThreat wrote:

RonRon wrote:And finally, I do not want Draymond Green for ONLY what he brings on the court, I want want he can teach to our team, what he has learned from Marc Jackson and then from Kerr, the differenced that changed their philosophy
I want how he can make other players better, I want his defensive ablities and his abilities to teach this, I want his worth ethic/leadership/work habits that he can pass out to our young guys, I want his leadershp

RonRon,

I think you make a strong point about finding another forward whose defense actually fits into a scheme where Melo will age into a full time power forward who will likely stay as a minus defender.

In that regard, Green, currently, offers a lot of defensive upside.

But I think another way to look at this is from the resource management side. The VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) question still looms over any FA acquisition the Knicks get or want to get.

For example, one of the core arguments I make why the Bull would no longer be interested in trading for Melo ( one of many reasons) is that Mirotic is on a very reasonable contract, he's a young player and if he can give you 75-80 percent of the production that Melo would give you but at 1/50th of the cost, that's a major value. That allows you to shift those resources in terms of cap savings elsewhere on your roster. It's not even just the NBA. Russell Wilson on that NFL rookie deal and his advanced production allows the Seahawks to arm up elsewhere on that contender roster, esp allowing them to keep core personnel on their defense.

Can you get 60-70-80 percent of Draymond Green's production at some fraction of a max out of 15 million a year? Can you get 2 guys combined who can give you 65 percent or 70 percent of what Green will give you at a fraction of the cost of 15 million a year.

No one is denying that Green can help the current Knicks and that he has a combination of youth and upside and pedigree from a winning team. The issue is VALUE from the resource management side of the game means you want young players OUTPERFORMING THEIR ROOKIE DEALS for you.

Russell Wilson is a value, a massive value at his current rookie deal.
Once he signs his 2nd contract, he's now being paid to market value or at least perceived market value. While he can still help that team win, the teams option tree narrows.
Are we going to dispute those points above?

The "Moneyball" phenomenon was fascinating because it laid out a simple core truth about professional sports. Every dollar spent has to equate to certain number of points, runs, touchdowns, goals, etc, and if you can't compete to extract the most for your dollar, against the top teams who might be handling their resources better, you've already lost before the season even started. Before the first jump ball, before the first kick off, before the first face off, before the first opening pitch.

You are right, stats alone don't tell the whole story. But at some litmus point, the cost ratio of how much it costs the Knicks to get those critical stats does matter, it becomes absolutely essential to winning.

There is NOTHING WRONG with paying a player to his market value if he can help you. But that tends to show more true upside when you've developed him and gained those rookie cost controlled years, and his built in rapport with your system, your coach, your other players and the philosophy of how you want to play.

The role you want Green to serve, in terms of leadership, is more suited to David West or a Paul Pierce type.

Could Green be everything you hope? Yes, it's possible.

But is it likely? Is it worth the trade offs you have to make elsewhere on the roster even if he can help you? Can you get 70 percent of the production at 15 percent of the cost?

At a certain price point, Green is a solid get for the Knicks, even with some variable risk.
But again, at a certain price point, Green becomes yet another sad overpay that hurts them from helping themselves across the roster. At the price point where Green can be a value for the Knicks, he has no incentive to come to this team and leave a much more successful situation ( from which our talking about him in the first place has it's roots)

Stats don't always matter. That's true.

But their ratio of cost to production is critical in a closed system like the NBA has in place.

Bravo again there is no retort to this post. 100% spot on.

and if you are not saying that... i have no idea what you are trying to say...

there aren't any shortcuts to this....

Knixkik wrote:If green came here with max expectations you guys would eat him alive. No way he would survive as a core player the way Melo and others over the years have been treated. He just couldn't put up the numbers and have the impact people would ask of him.

if he played the right way i would not eat him alive. it's when you have to endure watching lazy, overpaid knuckleheads that they earn their scorn. fundamentally-sound two-way players are worth rooting for.

TripleThreat wrote:

RonRon wrote:And finally, I do not want Draymond Green for ONLY what he brings on the court, I want want he can teach to our team, what he has learned from Marc Jackson and then from Kerr, the differenced that changed their philosophy
I want how he can make other players better, I want his defensive ablities and his abilities to teach this, I want his worth ethic/leadership/work habits that he can pass out to our young guys, I want his leadershp

RonRon,

I think you make a strong point about finding another forward whose defense actually fits into a scheme where Melo will age into a full time power forward who will likely stay as a minus defender.

In that regard, Green, currently, offers a lot of defensive upside.

But I think another way to look at this is from the resource management side. The VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) question still looms over any FA acquisition the Knicks get or want to get.

For example, one of the core arguments I make why the Bull would no longer be interested in trading for Melo ( one of many reasons) is that Mirotic is on a very reasonable contract, he's a young player and if he can give you 75-80 percent of the production that Melo would give you but at 1/50th of the cost, that's a major value. That allows you to shift those resources in terms of cap savings elsewhere on your roster. It's not even just the NBA. Russell Wilson on that NFL rookie deal and his advanced production allows the Seahawks to arm up elsewhere on that contender roster, esp allowing them to keep core personnel on their defense.

Can you get 60-70-80 percent of Draymond Green's production at some fraction of a max out of 15 million a year? Can you get 2 guys combined who can give you 65 percent or 70 percent of what Green will give you at a fraction of the cost of 15 million a year.

No one is denying that Green can help the current Knicks and that he has a combination of youth and upside and pedigree from a winning team. The issue is VALUE from the resource management side of the game means you want young players OUTPERFORMING THEIR ROOKIE DEALS for you.

Russell Wilson is a value, a massive value at his current rookie deal.
Once he signs his 2nd contract, he's now being paid to market value or at least perceived market value. While he can still help that team win, the teams option tree narrows.
Are we going to dispute those points above?

The "Moneyball" phenomenon was fascinating because it laid out a simple core truth about professional sports. Every dollar spent has to equate to certain number of points, runs, touchdowns, goals, etc, and if you can't compete to extract the most for your dollar, against the top teams who might be handling their resources better, you've already lost before the season even started. Before the first jump ball, before the first kick off, before the first face off, before the first opening pitch.

You are right, stats alone don't tell the whole story. But at some litmus point, the cost ratio of how much it costs the Knicks to get those critical stats does matter, it becomes absolutely essential to winning.

There is NOTHING WRONG with paying a player to his market value if he can help you. But that tends to show more true upside when you've developed him and gained those rookie cost controlled years, and his built in rapport with your system, your coach, your other players and the philosophy of how you want to play.

The role you want Green to serve, in terms of leadership, is more suited to David West or a Paul Pierce type.

Could Green be everything you hope? Yes, it's possible.

But is it likely? Is it worth the trade offs you have to make elsewhere on the roster even if he can help you? Can you get 70 percent of the production at 15 percent of the cost?

At a certain price point, Green is a solid get for the Knicks, even with some variable risk.
But again, at a certain price point, Green becomes yet another sad overpay that hurts them from helping themselves across the roster. At the price point where Green can be a value for the Knicks, he has no incentive to come to this team and leave a much more successful situation ( from which our talking about him in the first place has it's roots)

Stats don't always matter. That's true.

But their ratio of cost to production is critical in a closed system like the NBA has in place.

i think ronron's perspective is that once you vastly, grossly overpay for melo's services, moneyball becomes well-nigh impossible to initiate. i mean was there ever a more anti-moneyball contract than the one awarded the ultimate non-moneyball player?

hence the "continue to overpay other players" approach while melo is here-- you may catch lightning in a bottle and squeeze a conference finals appearance out of it....