gunsnewing wrote:You know people were arguing with me here a decade ago that you it is possible to win a championship without a superstar, its a team game yadda yadda yadda and my position hasn't changed in 55yrs. All I wanted from the Knicks was for a true rebuild to land us that superstar during the past 12yrs. Dolan and the ineptitude of his gm's proved to me that this route would never be taken in New York. Stern by forcing Walsh on the Knicks attempted to change that for a minute but Walsh screwed it up over and over again. Starting with hiring Dantoni and drafting Gallo & Hill. A lot of bad luck not landing a pick higher than 5 in all those years. And a lot of picks traded for guys like Mcdyess and Curry. Colossal busts of epic proportion trades

The eddy curry trade was the killer giving the guy all that money and giving the bulls drafts picks every year

dk7th wrote:

Uptown wrote:

dk7th wrote:

VCoug wrote:

Nalod wrote:

NUPE wrote:

biglove44 wrote:

NUPE wrote:NYNY, don't waste your time. There are several posters on this board whose sole agenda is to overrate Gallo, Chandler, Mozgov and Lin and be overly-critical of the current team. These are the same people claiming Melo is not a superstar, Melo ran Lin out of town, Melo is selfish, Melo is a loser, etc. These people also tend to try to insinuate that Gallo will be as good or better than Melo eventually....

Really, this current Knicks roster is head and shoulders above and superior in just about every way to the Gallo, Mozgov, Amar'e, Felton, Fields Knick team. You know someone is either trolling or not rational when they try to claim otherwise.

There are a lot of Melo homers too. Homers that think of as many excuses as possible as to why he hasn't made the finals/won a championship. It's always someone else's fault or he didn't have X team mate.

It goes both ways. You don't like reading homer posts about other players and I don't like reading homer posts related to Melo.

Rational analysis of Melo's playoff performances and playoff teams does not equate to being a homer. What is irrational are the people that cling to this idea that Melo ran Lin out of town and somehow is in control of the Knicks front office. LoL!

Also, I think Melo is a superstar player that still has a lot to prove in regards to playoff success. This applies to ton of superstars (such as Deron and Love). We will see how the Knicks do this year. I don't think they have any more excuses barring a massive injury riddled playoffs like the last two years.

Deron's record in playoffs are 19-20 with a trip to the conf. finals. But really there are so many variables to the team dynamic that the arguemt of "Melo in the playoffs" insinuates the individual nature of the game of basketball. Its a team game.

ITs hard to quantify the arguement of playoff failures when your first round opponent could be enroute to a long playoff run, injuries, and a ton of other variables.

We can argue the intangables but unless we watched every game of those series in Denver I don't think anyone can really lay blame on Melo for his individual play in those series.

Melo will get you to the playoffs and that keeps ticket sales going pretty good.

Fans want champioinships but some owners want the balance sheet to look good and don't want to risk losing money in the years it would take to build a club properly.

Does this mean because Dolan and the knicks have been constrcuted this way it holds true in the future? Only on internet forums.

The stars can always align when your a top 4 seed.

Winning a champoinship is not easy. Losing one is.

Usually they don't for a top 4 seed. Going back 45 years, to 1967 when the playoffs were expanded to four teams from each conference, there have only been seven championship teams that weren't either a first or second seed and only two that weren't a top 3 seed. Of those 45 champions there were 26 1st, 12 2nd, 5 3rd, 1 4th (the 1966 Boston Celtics), and 1 6th (the 1995 Houston Rockets) seeds. Basically, if we think we have a shot at a championship we need to finish as one of the top two teams in the East.

yes these are chilling and sobering stats. what the math says is that the knicks must be a top 1 or 2 seed if the melo trade is to be justified. the problem is that melo's teams have been a 3rd seed only once and a second seed only once in the west. i have never liked the fact that melo's teams have always seemed to underachieve in the regular season, as though there was some loafing going on. and lets face it the "loafer" tag has followed carmelo anthony his entire career.

if he does not show up in supreme shape and with a maniacal focus on defending the position the knicks are in big big trouble.

How do you underachieve when you are competing in the same conference as the Suns, Spurs, Lakers, Kings and Mavs? Those teams consistently put better products on the floor when Melo was still with the Nuggs. Seriously, have you really analyzed those Nuggs rosters?

BTW, speaking of underachieving, 1 year the Nuggs won 50 games and ended up being an 8th seed.

here's how: you lose more games on the road against inferior teams. you play down to the competition in both conferences. you lose to mediocre teams you should be beating. all this points to a distinct lack of: leadership, focus, will, offensive efficiency, and defensive intensity.

players worth signing to the max AND trading for possess these qualities... and melo is not one of them.

if melo had possessed these qualities the nuggets should have been a legit top 3 seed almost every year. the one year the nuggets made it to 3rd seed do you know what their record was? a 44-38 mediocre record but enough to top the division-- still, based on the record, they were really a 6th seed.

billups elevated the team to legitimate 2nd seed with a 54-28 record.

here's how: you lose more games on the road against inferior teams. you play down to the competition in both conferences. you lose to mediocre teams you should be beating. all this points to a distinct lack of: leadership, focus, will, offensive efficiency, and defensive intensity.

If there are only 2-3 teams every year that have a legit shot to win a championship, you just identified teams 4-30 in the league. Every non-championship team goes through this.

if melo had possessed these qualities the nuggets should have been a legit top 3 seed almost every year. the one year the nuggets made it to 3rd seed do you know what their record was? a 44-38 mediocre record but enough to top the division-- still, based on the record, they were really a 6th seed.

gunsnewing wrote:You know people were arguing with me here a decade ago that it is possible to win a championship without a superstar, its a team game yadda yadda yadda and my position hasn't changed in 55yrs. All I wanted from the Knicks was for a true rebuild to land us that superstar during the past 12yrs. Dolan and the ineptitude of his gm's proved to me that this route would never be taken in New York. Stern by forcing Walsh on the Knicks attempted to change that for a minute but Walsh screwed it up over and over again. Starting with hiring Dantoni and drafting Gallo & Hill. A lot of bad luck not landing a pick higher than 5 in all those years. And a lot of picks traded for guys like Mcdyess and Curry. Colossal busts of epic proportion trades

The Knicks and the Lakers will never rebuilt...It's a business and it just doesn't make financial sense...I'll bet any amount of money you would do the same thing, if you were to bear financial responsibly of running a similar organization...Lose games five to seven years with the Garden empty and lose money, for a chance to land a decent player to make a run, not guaranteed of course, or do what the Knicks is doing now and sell out the Garden...

holfresh wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:You know people were arguing with me here a decade ago that it is possible to win a championship without a superstar, its a team game yadda yadda yadda and my position hasn't changed in 55yrs. All I wanted from the Knicks was for a true rebuild to land us that superstar during the past 12yrs. Dolan and the ineptitude of his gm's proved to me that this route would never be taken in New York. Stern by forcing Walsh on the Knicks attempted to change that for a minute but Walsh screwed it up over and over again. Starting with hiring Dantoni and drafting Gallo & Hill. A lot of bad luck not landing a pick higher than 5 in all those years. And a lot of picks traded for guys like Mcdyess and Curry. Colossal busts of epic proportion trades

The Knicks and the Lakers will never rebuilt...It's a business and it just doesn't make financial sense...I'll bet any amount of money you would do the same thing, if you were to bear financial responsibly of running a similar organization...Lose games five to seven years with the Garden empty and lose money, for a chance to land a decent player to make a run, not guaranteed of course, or do what the Knicks is doing now and sell out the Garden...

Regardless of how you look it the organization is poisoned from the top down with Dolan. We spend a decade not rebuilding and still losing at the same rate as the teams who were rebuilding like the bulls etc. The Garden was empty all those years. Its only speaks to the owners ineptitude.

ChuckBuck wrote:

Nalod wrote:Detroit went to two finals without a "Star". I'd even say the Bad Boys lacked a true star. Isiah was damn close but not an MVP immovable force/freak of nature.

Nets with Kidd went to finals twice. Indy with Reggie Miller wnt to finals.

You can get close. There have been very good teams in an era that got close. History is full of them.

I agree stars are the ultimate winners but new ecnomics will have an impact.

Rangers are built to reflect the new era of econmics in the NHL.

There is no hard cap in the NBA but where taxes were 2x are now 4x that is pretty severe! Rangers can spend on minor leagues and develope players which is wht the knicks should try to do.

The N*ts were setting losing records last year and were able to reconfigure the team to what many think is a .500 (maybe better) team. Worst to first? How that happen? Brook did not play last year and JJ was a cap dump that a team with space can take on. Denver traded Affalo for Iggy cuz they had room and Philly wanted room. That is what the league was hoping for. With cap space they traded their 8th pic for Gerald Wallace. In retrospect they kept Wallace (portland dumped him)and I doubt the 8th pick could have stepped in and contributed right away as Wallce. Brooklyn is in a "win now" mode also so its their choice. Longer term Portland gets to retool with an asset. This creates parity. NBA does not want habitually awful teams. In fact, fewer super teams creates a more competitive game.

Economic changes in the CBA will impact how teams are created and sustained. If OK can trade Harden Properly they can perpetuate their cause but it might cost them a ring.

Can't disagree with you more about Detroit '89 and '90.

Isiah Thomas is an all time great. An NBA Superstar. A Hall of Famer who backed up his performances in the playoffs against the best competition.

From Wikipedia:

Thomas was named to the All-NBA First team three times and is the Pistons' all-time leader in points, steals, games played and assists. He ranks fifth in NBA history in assists (9,061, 9.3 apg) and ranks ninth in NBA history in steals (1,861). Thomas was known for his dribbling ability as well as his ability to drive to the basket and score. His No. 11 was retired by the Detroit Pistons.

I don't think they let any "Star" into the 50 Greatest Players club. He should've been on Dream Team 1992 if it weren't for Jordan's aversion to him.

OOow, a "Gotcha" post!

I subscribe that Isiah was all star and he is a top 50 player (as is ewing and Barkley) but my point is really about the team around him. Isiah had Joe Dumars (all star) but they were dynamic together and that team were deep! They could bring in Mahorn, Sally, the Microwave, Lindsey Hunter. DId they have a trifecta of "stars"? Not in the front court! They had Isiah and Dumars as the best players! Those pistons did not compare to the firepower that was the Show Time lakers, Birds Pistons or the eventual Bulls. But they won back to back!

Not taking away from Isiah the player.

Nalod wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Nalod wrote:Detroit went to two finals without a "Star". I'd even say the Bad Boys lacked a true star. Isiah was damn close but not an MVP immovable force/freak of nature.

Nets with Kidd went to finals twice. Indy with Reggie Miller wnt to finals.

You can get close. There have been very good teams in an era that got close. History is full of them.

I agree stars are the ultimate winners but new ecnomics will have an impact.

Rangers are built to reflect the new era of econmics in the NHL.

There is no hard cap in the NBA but where taxes were 2x are now 4x that is pretty severe! Rangers can spend on minor leagues and develope players which is wht the knicks should try to do.

The N*ts were setting losing records last year and were able to reconfigure the team to what many think is a .500 (maybe better) team. Worst to first? How that happen? Brook did not play last year and JJ was a cap dump that a team with space can take on. Denver traded Affalo for Iggy cuz they had room and Philly wanted room. That is what the league was hoping for. With cap space they traded their 8th pic for Gerald Wallace. In retrospect they kept Wallace (portland dumped him)and I doubt the 8th pick could have stepped in and contributed right away as Wallce. Brooklyn is in a "win now" mode also so its their choice. Longer term Portland gets to retool with an asset. This creates parity. NBA does not want habitually awful teams. In fact, fewer super teams creates a more competitive game.

Economic changes in the CBA will impact how teams are created and sustained. If OK can trade Harden Properly they can perpetuate their cause but it might cost them a ring.

Can't disagree with you more about Detroit '89 and '90.

Isiah Thomas is an all time great. An NBA Superstar. A Hall of Famer who backed up his performances in the playoffs against the best competition.

From Wikipedia:

Thomas was named to the All-NBA First team three times and is the Pistons' all-time leader in points, steals, games played and assists. He ranks fifth in NBA history in assists (9,061, 9.3 apg) and ranks ninth in NBA history in steals (1,861). Thomas was known for his dribbling ability as well as his ability to drive to the basket and score. His No. 11 was retired by the Detroit Pistons.

I don't think they let any "Star" into the 50 Greatest Players club. He should've been on Dream Team 1992 if it weren't for Jordan's aversion to him.

OOow, a "Gotcha" post!

I subscribe that Isiah was all star and he is a top 50 player (as is ewing and Barkley) but my point is really about the team around him. Isiah had Joe Dumars (all star) but they were dynamic together and that team were deep! They could bring in Mahorn, Sally, the Microwave, Lindsey Hunter. DId they have a trifecta of "stars"? Not in the front court! They had Isiah and Dumars as the best players! Those pistons did not compare to the firepower that was the Show Time lakers, Birds Pistons or the eventual Bulls. But they won back to back!

Not taking away from Isiah the player.

That Pistons team was alittle better than you are giving them credit for. 3 of the players on that team are in the Hall of Fame....

And, "HE" took down bird and the Celtics! "He" defeated "Showtime"...........

My point, Melo is not "HE"! This notion that a single player can habitually win witout a solid supporting cast is crazy.

He's won on every level except the NBA and at 25 ppg being his AVERAGE, he is viewed as an underachiever still.

He's a lock.

Nalod wrote:

knickscity wrote:Don't see how this became a discussion but Melo is HOF'er now.

He's won on every level except the NBA and at 25 ppg being his AVERAGE, he is viewed as an underachiever still.

He's a lock.

THis is about Denver and other teams perhaps progressing without a closer superstar. I subscribe that as good as Isiah was it was his cast that provided. I subscribe that Melo alone will never win a championship and while not a fan of "the trade" I support the position that laying blame on him for the teams lack of success so far is not a solid evaluation.

About Isiah, the guy was an intense leader of men and perhaps I was wrong to undermine his effect on that team. My point was that they did not have the frontcourt usually associated with champions in particular Lambier and Rodman!

I disagree with u on Detroit...They had a great defensive team with great depth and guys who understood their roles...Rodman a HOFer and great defender in the early days...James Edwards understood his role and has a 15 foot post up game...Salley was good energy off the bench along with Vinny Johnson...Lambier was physical and a decent defender...Bro, Isiah was a Superstar back then no doubt about it...Superstar in the true sense and I'm very surprised u would see it any onter way...Am I wrong or did Isaih score 25 consecutive points in a playoff game...The guy was unstoppable...Dumars was an all star defender and gave Jordan the most trouble of any defender in the NBA...Great coach..U just can't gloss over Detriot like they were another team...Didn't they have Mark Aguire at some point too??...Did u really say Isaih wasn't a closing Superstar????....It was his calling card...I subscribe that there was no player as dangerous as Isiah with the ball at the top of the key able to blow by u and get to the rim or in taking the three...