Knixkik wrote:Front office said they were going to build this team around the youth and signed guys to block their development. They should have only signed a couple of these guys to help provide vet leadership. All 7 they signed expected to be rotation players. Not sure what was expected there , other than blocking playing time for most of the young guys. Just such a strange plan. If they signed maybe 3 out of the 7 is makes more sense. You’re still focused on developing but add a few solid vets to stabilize things. But why sign this many guys where it’s almost a certainty many will end up unhappy and think low of the knicks. It contradicts the whole “culture “ aspect they were selling. Could have added Randle or Morris (not both), Taj and Payton and kept everything else status quo.

There are money to be spend... This all group is on the short trial.
You try more players you have more opportunities to find something useful.
Everyone has to much expectations about how fast young players can be developed and team constructed from nothing or even less that nothing.
It is extremely difficult to strike the balance and impossible to do a perfect job.
We literally had nothing to hold on to after top FA understandably refused to waste their prime time with destroyed franchise.

arkrud wrote:

Knixkik wrote:Front office said they were going to build this team around the youth and signed guys to block their development. They should have only signed a couple of these guys to help provide vet leadership. All 7 they signed expected to be rotation players. Not sure what was expected there , other than blocking playing time for most of the young guys. Just such a strange plan. If they signed maybe 3 out of the 7 is makes more sense. You’re still focused on developing but add a few solid vets to stabilize things. But why sign this many guys where it’s almost a certainty many will end up unhappy and think low of the knicks. It contradicts the whole “culture “ aspect they were selling. Could have added Randle or Morris (not both), Taj and Payton and kept everything else status quo.

There are money to be spend... This all group is on the short trial.
You try more players you have more opportunities to find something useful.
Everyone has to much expectations about how fast young players can be developed and team constructed from nothing or even less that nothing.
It is extremely difficult to strike the balance and impossible to do a perfect job.
We literally had nothing to hold on to after top FA understandably refused to waste their prime time with destroyed franchise.

Instead of spreading it around the Knicks should have hand picked players who they believe are difference makers. Let’s say Brogdon. Knicks could have done what Indiana did and offer a Dallas pick to trade for him and offer more money. Adding brogdon and Randle to this young core would have been a good start to improving the team without compromising the young players and still have flexibility in 2021.

HofstraBBall wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Knixkik wrote:Front office said they were going to build this team around the youth and signed guys to block their development. They should have only signed a couple of these guys to help provide vet leadership. All 7 they signed expected to be rotation players. Not sure what was expected there , other than blocking playing time for most of the young guys. Just such a strange plan. If they signed maybe 3 out of the 7 is makes more sense. You’re still focused on developing but add a few solid vets to stabilize things. But why sign this many guys where it’s almost a certainty many will end up unhappy and think low of the knicks. It contradicts the whole “culture “ aspect they were selling. Could have added Randle or Morris (not both), Taj and Payton and kept everything else status quo.

There are money to be spend... This all group is on the short trial.
You try more players you have more opportunities to find something useful.
Everyone has to much expectations about how fast young players can be developed and team constructed from nothing or even less that nothing.
It is extremely difficult to strike the balance and impossible to do a perfect job.
We literally had nothing to hold on to after top FA understandably refused to waste their prime time with destroyed franchise.

Many have said that the cap money should have been saved to take on contracts and receive draft picks.

Team must spend the required amount regardless.
And there is no diff in having just money or some assets which are money equivalent above this limit.
The players we have can be used like a cap space and waived by receiving team.
One can argue that having an actual player is better as it adds the opportunity for this player to improve his trade value or became integral part of the solution.
Fans tend to oversimplify. The pro sport mechanics is quite complex and has much more to it from what casual fan can even imagine.

jrodmc wrote:Because some fans and media don't think tanking is a great spectator sport.

I wouldn't have minded the tanking and youth development. I even like the idea of adding vets to speed up that development, even at the cost of a few lottery spots. I don't like the of wasting developmental minutes on journeymen during a sub 20 win season.

arkrud wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Because some fans and media don't think tanking is a great spectator sport.

I wouldn't have minded the tanking and youth development. I even like the idea of adding vets to speed up that development, even at the cost of a few lottery spots. I don't like the of wasting developmental minutes on journeymen during a sub 20 win season.

Do you think running young players into the ground and braking their confidence in the process like with Knox last year is better solution?
It works for some players and does not work for others.
The team need 10 life bodies plus injuries lead to more need.
We may have more young players next season so we will need less vets.
It is not about whom we took but about who was available and willing to join.

BigDaddyG wrote:

arkrud wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Because some fans and media don't think tanking is a great spectator sport.

I wouldn't have minded the tanking and youth development. I even like the idea of adding vets to speed up that development, even at the cost of a few lottery spots. I don't like the of wasting developmental minutes on journeymen during a sub 20 win season.

Do you think running young players into the ground and braking their confidence in the process like with Knox last year is better solution?
It works for some players and does not work for others.
The team need 10 life bodies plus injuries lead to more need.
We may have more young players next season so we will need less vets.
It is not about whom we took but about who was available and willing to join.

No. I have no problems with benching Knox or Mitch so they can learn. I have a problem with wasting developmental minutes on turnover prone veteran PFs with the idea that they can become Draymond Green.

How you get to know that they are turnover prone veteran PFs without looking at them play?
Now we know and should move on from them... but this is also a process of getting read of someone.
Any knowledge has a price tag attached, no matter it is positive or negative knowledge.

arkrud wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

arkrud wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Because some fans and media don't think tanking is a great spectator sport.

I wouldn't have minded the tanking and youth development. I even like the idea of adding vets to speed up that development, even at the cost of a few lottery spots. I don't like the of wasting developmental minutes on journeymen during a sub 20 win season.

Do you think running young players into the ground and braking their confidence in the process like with Knox last year is better solution?
It works for some players and does not work for others.
The team need 10 life bodies plus injuries lead to more need.
We may have more young players next season so we will need less vets.
It is not about whom we took but about who was available and willing to join.

No. I have no problems with benching Knox or Mitch so they can learn. I have a problem with wasting developmental minutes on turnover prone veteran PFs with the idea that they can become Draymond Green.

How you get to know that they are turnover prone veteran PFs without looking at them play?
Now we know and should move on from them... but this is also a process of getting read of someone.
Any knowledge has a price tag attached, no matter it is positive or negative knowledge.

Knixkik wrote:Front office said they were going to build this team around the youth and signed guys to block their development. They should have only signed a couple of these guys to help provide vet leadership. All 7 they signed expected to be rotation players. Not sure what was expected there , other than blocking playing time for most of the young guys. Just such a strange plan. If they signed maybe 3 out of the 7 is makes more sense. You’re still focused on developing but add a few solid vets to stabilize things. But why sign this many guys where it’s almost a certainty many will end up unhappy and think low of the knicks. It contradicts the whole “culture “ aspect they were selling. Could have added Randle or Morris (not both), Taj and Payton and kept everything else status quo.

+ 10000.....Even though most of these guys are signed to one year deals, and I get what the front office was thinking, it was the wrong move. These moves proved that the circus never left, caused Dolan to force Mills and Perry to call a an unnecessary and embarrassing press conference, cost Fiz his job, reminded the world how impatient and impossible it is to work for Dolan, will eventually cost Perry his job, and has put into motion Dolan going big name hunting again!!

I agree with pretty much everything you said except I don't think we should have signed Payton. Frank and Dennis should have been given a whole year for evaluation....