The talent is there for sure- on paper- but the age and injury history of all the guys brought in is huge and could blow up tremendously in his face.

The absolute worst outcome would be years of just missing the play offs or barely squeeking in and having middling picks to work with to fill in and build forward.

Thing is I don't think there is anything regarding these moves to really "justify." I didn't like the Rose trade, but didn't hate it. Opted for a wait and see approach. Thad Young got pick #20 in an unimpressive draft (gauging Lopez's value) and Grant played very poorly last year. Lopez played 82 games on a 32 win team. We gave up something yes, but I cant see losing Lopez/Jose/Grant as guys you really need to justify making moves for. Also once we added Noah/Rose we got Lee/Jennings/Lance at discount rates. The more talent you have the more attractive your franchise is to other players.

This was an aggressive offseason to upgrade the talent and perception of the team and those things happened. What is different from the past is we didn't have a 20 year old player with KP's potential so the future remains bright. Hopefully Willy proves to be a running mate for the next decade, but I will keep my enthusiasm on realistic scale for now.

Team has a great future. Team doesn't owe any future first rounders. Good chance the Bull's pick is in the 30s next season.

I mean in year 3 we have a 2 way franchise caliber prospect. We have 3 guys around that player who are all capable of taking over a game. Its a very new team this year, but there is nice roster diversity. This isn't a one and done. This is a model that can win now and continue to build for the future.

franco12 wrote:I think they need to make the play offs at least every year and first round exit is not ok. They don't have to get to the finals, but they can't be one and done every year.

The talent is there for sure- on paper- but the age and injury history of all the guys brought in is huge and could blow up tremendously in his face.

The absolute worst outcome would be years of just missing the play offs or barely squeeking in and having middling picks to work with to fill in and build forward.

Play offs all 4 years, 1st round exits not ok

If we win 40 games next year with Lopez/Grant and Jose but miss the playoffs is that a good season? A successfully season? I don't see a balanced scale for measuring the moves made this offseason... was the expectation that the Knicks were going to compete for a title with Grant/Lopez as centerpieces?

fishmike wrote:

franco12 wrote:I think they need to make the play offs at least every year and first round exit is not ok. They don't have to get to the finals, but they can't be one and done every year.

The talent is there for sure- on paper- but the age and injury history of all the guys brought in is huge and could blow up tremendously in his face.

The absolute worst outcome would be years of just missing the play offs or barely squeeking in and having middling picks to work with to fill in and build forward.

Play offs all 4 years, 1st round exits not ok

I am guessing by the bold you selected the below option. Let me simply as why? This team won 32 games last year with the "valuable assets" we traded away in rotation players Grant/Jose/Lopez. So is the expectation if we keep those guys the Knicks are in the semi's every year? Hows that? Sorry... I am just not connecting the dots. We traded 3 rotation guys from a 32 win team, and now the expectation for these moves to be "worth it" is we need to at least make the 2nd round every year?

If we win 40 games next year with Lopez/Grant and Jose but miss the playoffs is that a good season? A successfully season? I don't see a balanced scale for measuring the moves made this offseason... was the expectation that the Knicks were going to compete for a title with Grant/Lopez as centerpieces?

No, franco12 is in the build organically through the draft/pounce in the real free agency class of 2017 camp.

When Mike Conley is the one making $150m, you're in the wrong free agency class. We ideally should've signed band-aids for 1-2 yr options, but we blew our load on the all MRI team. Sucks, but we all have to move on.

TheGame wrote:The issue is health. If Rose and Noah can play 60-65 games a year and stay healthy for the playoffs, we will be competing for ECF every year for the next 3-4 years. If Rose and Noah miss 30 or more games, we will probably be back in the lottery wondering what happened. You cannot really predict health, so we cannot really predict if these moves were good, great, or terrible at this point. All I can say is the moves have the potential to be great, which is still better than the last few offenses. I think Phil took a gamble that needed to be taken and he gave us a chance to have a legetimate contending team.

If one of these guys establish themselves than I think you continue to see this as a key FA destination. We are already seeing a positive trickle down effect. Need to continue that trend I think its very possible.

ChuckBuck wrote:

fishmike wrote:

franco12 wrote:I think they need to make the play offs at least every year and first round exit is not ok. They don't have to get to the finals, but they can't be one and done every year.

The talent is there for sure- on paper- but the age and injury history of all the guys brought in is huge and could blow up tremendously in his face.

The absolute worst outcome would be years of just missing the play offs or barely squeeking in and having middling picks to work with to fill in and build forward.

Play offs all 4 years, 1st round exits not ok

I am guessing by the bold you selected the below option. Let me simply as why? This team won 32 games last year with the "valuable assets" we traded away in rotation players Grant/Jose/Lopez. So is the expectation if we keep those guys the Knicks are in the semi's every year? Hows that? Sorry... I am just not connecting the dots. We traded 3 rotation guys from a 32 win team, and now the expectation for these moves to be "worth it" is we need to at least make the 2nd round every year?

If we win 40 games next year with Lopez/Grant and Jose but miss the playoffs is that a good season? A successfully season? I don't see a balanced scale for measuring the moves made this offseason... was the expectation that the Knicks were going to compete for a title with Grant/Lopez as centerpieces?

No, franco12 is in the build organically through the draft/pounce in the real free agency class of 2017 camp.

When Mike Conley is the one making $150m, you're in the wrong free agency class. We ideally should've signed band-aids for 1-2 yr options, but we blew our load on the all MRI team. Sucks, but we all have to move on.

Chuck - I think we agree. I was of the mind to build smartly and steadily with an eye towards building a winner in 2-5 years, not overnight.

We were 500 for a stretch last year, and partly failed because of the Fisher drama and a Melo freak injury- as well as just not having enough talent.

Right now, with Phil's moves, 58% of our cap is occupied by players brought in over 30 and or who were injuried last year or the year before and played very few games. That's Rose, Noah, Lee and Jennings. Only Jennings is a bargain. Rose thank god is an expiring.

Phil's gambled. Is it smart? We don't have access to medical reports, doctors and the video tape and scouts and experts that I hope Phil does.

But, I think based on the moves and the implications to our future flexibility, we can as fans have realistic expectations of what a win to Phil's gamble looks like.

I can accept no sub 500 play. I just have a slightly higher goal based on what Phil's done.

SwishAndDish13 wrote:This is pretty misleading because we didn't go all-in. We actually have pretty good flexibility out of the moves that were made. The poll is a good one. Making the playoffs the next 3 years with at least 1 sustained run would be enjoyable and a nice change of pace.

Good flexibility how? Didn't we lock in injury prone Noah for 4 years and already 30 year old Courtney Lee for 4 years also? Also, Lance Thomas is 28 and locked in for 4 years as well.

Besides possibly flipping Rose for another point guard next season, there isn't much wiggle room to get out from these potentially albatross contracts.

Anyone thinking this is a win for the future type team is delusional.

The Knicks are trying to compete. "Building the right way" amounts to a heck of a lot of luck. We got KP. We wouldn't have gotten him if the Sixers or Lakers wanted him. The Spurs wouldn't necessarily be regarded as one of the best franchises of all-time if they hadn't lucked into the first pick in the draft the year Tim Duncan was available - they got him because David Robinson and Sean Elliot both unexpectedly went down with injuries. OKC did everything right. They drafted Durant, Westbrook, Ibaka, Harden - they lost them all due to bad luck in the playoffs.

Phil took a risk - there's no reason not to. Hoarding assets for a day that may never come or trying to purposely lose for draft position is lame. Just ask Sam Hinkie how well that works. The Sixers just did that for the past four years. Are they in better shape than the Knicks? Are they really? What do they have to show for it? A whole lot less than the Knicks who got lucky with KP the one year they had a top 4 pick.

ChuckBuck wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:This is pretty misleading because we didn't go all-in. We actually have pretty good flexibility out of the moves that were made. The poll is a good one. Making the playoffs the next 3 years with at least 1 sustained run would be enjoyable and a nice change of pace.

Good flexibility how? Didn't we lock in injury prone Noah for 4 years and already 30 year old Courtney Lee for 4 years also? Also, Lance Thomas is 28 and locked in for 4 years as well.

Besides possibly flipping Rose for another point guard next season, there isn't much wiggle room to get out from these potentially albatross contracts.

Anyone thinking this is a win for the future type team is delusional.

At some point you have to decide that winning is important and signing key pieces is also important. I can't believe you just complained about signing LT to a 4 year deal, especially at his price. When does stability come into your thinking? I put Courtney Lee into that same category.

We have flexibility on the team's most riskiest player. This is not Philly.

fishmike wrote:

crzymdups wrote:People were (laughably) worried we were locked into Robin Lopez's contract and that we overpaid. Those same people then lamented that we traded such a good value contract. The handwringing around here is ridiculous.

The Knicks are trying to compete. "Building the right way" amounts to a heck of a lot of luck. We got KP. We wouldn't have gotten him if the Sixers or Lakers wanted him. The Spurs wouldn't necessarily be regarded as one of the best franchises of all-time if they hadn't lucked into the first pick in the draft the year Tim Duncan was available - they got him because David Robinson and Sean Elliot both unexpectedly went down with injuries. OKC did everything right. They drafted Durant, Westbrook, Ibaka, Harden - they lost them all due to bad luck in the playoffs.

Phil took a risk - there's no reason not to. Hoarding assets for a day that may never come or trying to purposely lose for draft position is lame. Just ask Sam Hinkie how well that works. The Sixers just did that for the past four years. Are they in better shape than the Knicks? Are they really? What do they have to show for it? A whole lot less than the Knicks who got lucky with KP the one year they had a top 4 pick.

what was that risk again? That Grant turns into a move the needle PG? That Lopez's value skyrockets above the last first round pick value that Thad Young got? The risk is that this whole thing fails and we are back in the lottery next year, and according to the "we should have grown it organically" crowd that is a good thing. So outline the risk again for me please? I am a bit sketchy on those details...

I thought you loved and had big hopes for Grant.