CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:All i read is lebron or nothing, and maybe hope we could have gotten one of the players who's been traded in that time.

The problem with that is meanwhile you dropping off lotto picks to Houston in 2011 and 2012.

Well I guess you weren't here until last summer and you may not realize the players I've said we should target. I've listed players ranging from under-valued talents like Harden to under-valued role players like Reddick, and, more importantly, I've indicated how I evaluate players.

based on the trades made, we never had the assets to get them.

We disagree. If the team had spent 3 years building assets (including using the right info. to evaluate draft picks), we'd have plenty of assets. But we're entering untestable territory. Obviously, every option I propose you're going to say was impossible and you're going to say the future just couldn't possibly be brighter than it is.

You keep mentioning draft picks when 2013 would have been the first pick we control.

You have to address those picks would be Houston's thanks to Walsh firstly.....start from there first.

We had the ability to buy picks and trade for them. You have tremendous trading advantages if you're under the cap.

The new CBA only allows you to spend 3 mil annually. The Knicks did not and do not have money to buy picks. I think the only player they could trade for picks is and was shump. Trading shump in that scenario defeats the rebuild through the draft mantra in my opinion. Walsh moved a lot of first round picks out.

Right, this was before the new CBA

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:All i read is lebron or nothing, and maybe hope we could have gotten one of the players who's been traded in that time.

The problem with that is meanwhile you dropping off lotto picks to Houston in 2011 and 2012.

Well I guess you weren't here until last summer and you may not realize the players I've said we should target. I've listed players ranging from under-valued talents like Harden to under-valued role players like Reddick, and, more importantly, I've indicated how I evaluate players.

based on the trades made, we never had the assets to get them.

We disagree. If the team had spent 3 years building assets (including using the right info. to evaluate draft picks), we'd have plenty of assets. But we're entering untestable territory. Obviously, every option I propose you're going to say was impossible and you're going to say the future just couldn't possibly be brighter than it is.

You keep mentioning draft picks when 2013 would have been the first pick we control.

You have to address those picks would be Houston's thanks to Walsh firstly.....start from there first.

We had the ability to buy picks and trade for them. You have tremendous trading advantages if you're under the cap.

The new CBA only allows you to spend 3 mil annually. The Knicks did not and do not have money to buy picks. I think the only player they could trade for picks is and was shump. Trading shump in that scenario defeats the rebuild through the draft mantra in my opinion. Walsh moved a lot of first round picks out.

He wasted the amnesty to there is a myth on here that somehow thats Melo's fault the amnesty was used. WALSH picked up the Billups option then the Knicks amnestied him proving without a shadow of a doubt just how inept are franchise really is.

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:All i read is lebron or nothing, and maybe hope we could have gotten one of the players who's been traded in that time.

The problem with that is meanwhile you dropping off lotto picks to Houston in 2011 and 2012.

Well I guess you weren't here until last summer and you may not realize the players I've said we should target. I've listed players ranging from under-valued talents like Harden to under-valued role players like Reddick, and, more importantly, I've indicated how I evaluate players.

based on the trades made, we never had the assets to get them.

We disagree. If the team had spent 3 years building assets (including using the right info. to evaluate draft picks), we'd have plenty of assets. But we're entering untestable territory. Obviously, every option I propose you're going to say was impossible and you're going to say the future just couldn't possibly be brighter than it is.

this chat can't lead anywhere. my two cents: you never, EVER trade for a guy you can't build a winner around, that guy being carmelo anthony. if you must acquire this sort of player it should only be for cash. for that reason alone-- knowing that you cannot win with this guy is reason enough to conclude that an alternate plan NOT involving him would be brighter and better.

The zero proof that the team would be better by acquiring no one, the table was already set.

It's hard to vuild anything when the worst contract in the NBA that Walsh knew would be is on the team doing nothing.

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:All i read is lebron or nothing, and maybe hope we could have gotten one of the players who's been traded in that time.

The problem with that is meanwhile you dropping off lotto picks to Houston in 2011 and 2012.

Well I guess you weren't here until last summer and you may not realize the players I've said we should target. I've listed players ranging from under-valued talents like Harden to under-valued role players like Reddick, and, more importantly, I've indicated how I evaluate players.

based on the trades made, we never had the assets to get them.

We disagree. If the team had spent 3 years building assets (including using the right info. to evaluate draft picks), we'd have plenty of assets. But we're entering untestable territory. Obviously, every option I propose you're going to say was impossible and you're going to say the future just couldn't possibly be brighter than it is.

this chat can't lead anywhere. my two cents: you never, EVER trade for a guy you can't build a winner around, that guy being carmelo anthony. if you must acquire this sort of player it should only be for cash. for that reason alone-- knowing that you cannot win with this guy is reason enough to conclude that an alternate plan NOT involving him would be brighter and better.

exactly.....when you trade young players and picks for this type of guy, you will soon have threads saying:

"he needs help"

"we need two way players"

" we need youth"

" lets trade chandler for a promising young center and a first rounder, i am sure the other team wants to be taken to the cleaners"

You just don't make moves like that, and moves like that is what I think caused walsh to walk away from this mess....

tkf wrote:

knickscity wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:All i read is lebron or nothing, and maybe hope we could have gotten one of the players who's been traded in that time.

The problem with that is meanwhile you dropping off lotto picks to Houston in 2011 and 2012.

Well I guess you weren't here until last summer and you may not realize the players I've said we should target. I've listed players ranging from under-valued talents like Harden to under-valued role players like Reddick, and, more importantly, I've indicated how I evaluate players.

based on the trades made, we never had the assets to get them.

We disagree. If the team had spent 3 years building assets (including using the right info. to evaluate draft picks), we'd have plenty of assets. But we're entering untestable territory. Obviously, every option I propose you're going to say was impossible and you're going to say the future just couldn't possibly be brighter than it is.

this chat can't lead anywhere. my two cents: you never, EVER trade for a guy you can't build a winner around, that guy being carmelo anthony. if you must acquire this sort of player it should only be for cash. for that reason alone-- knowing that you cannot win with this guy is reason enough to conclude that an alternate plan NOT involving him would be brighter and better.

The Knicks are building around Carmelo because the other guy is more healthier wearing a suit.

The zero proof that the team would be better by acquiring no one, the table was already set.

It's hard to vuild anything when the worst contract in the NBA that Walsh knew would be is on the team doing nothing.

so where is the proof that we are better off by building around carmelo? and I ask this because you would have to show me that by not acquiring anyone this option is better, and the only way to do that is to have proof...

this is why that comment really doesn't make sense...

what people are trying to say is, there is a way of doing business that tends to lead to long term success, and that is what some of us wanted to follow.. We are not saying there are guarantees, but when you follow that path, things tend to either work out, or leave you options to adjust for long term success...

We have data to help support why building around carmelo or building this way will not get us our ultimate goal of a championship.. so while it makes you all warm and fuzzy to win 50 games and root for a guy who you think is a superstar, a lebron equalizer, a once in a life time player, and fizzle out in the playoffs, it is not what we paid for, and honestly is not getting us any closer to a ring...

The first draft for the Knicks would have been this draft which is slated to not have any franchise talent.

You claims other teams future is bright, all i see is an opinion.

Houston is still trying to get a top player, maybe they do, maybe they dont.

The Bobcats stink

The Wizards and cavs have been in the lottery for a while with little to show for it....recordwise.

I'm sure you would be fine with the Knicks being terrible for a few years.

<looks at your sig and wonder why am i discussing this with you>

tkf wrote:

knickscity wrote:

tkf wrote:

knickscity wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:All i read is lebron or nothing, and maybe hope we could have gotten one of the players who's been traded in that time.

The problem with that is meanwhile you dropping off lotto picks to Houston in 2011 and 2012.

Well I guess you weren't here until last summer and you may not realize the players I've said we should target. I've listed players ranging from under-valued talents like Harden to under-valued role players like Reddick, and, more importantly, I've indicated how I evaluate players.

based on the trades made, we never had the assets to get them.

We disagree. If the team had spent 3 years building assets (including using the right info. to evaluate draft picks), we'd have plenty of assets. But we're entering untestable territory. Obviously, every option I propose you're going to say was impossible and you're going to say the future just couldn't possibly be brighter than it is.

this chat can't lead anywhere. my two cents: you never, EVER trade for a guy you can't build a winner around, that guy being carmelo anthony. if you must acquire this sort of player it should only be for cash. for that reason alone-- knowing that you cannot win with this guy is reason enough to conclude that an alternate plan NOT involving him would be brighter and better.

The Knicks are building around Carmelo because the other guy is more healthier wearing a suit.

The zero proof that the team would be better by acquiring no one, the table was already set.

It's hard to vuild anything when the worst contract in the NBA that Walsh knew would be is on the team doing nothing.

so where is the proof that we are better off by building around carmelo? and I ask this because you would have to show me that by not acquiring anyone this option is better, and the only way to do that is to have proof...

this is why that comment really doesn't make sense...

what people are trying to say is, there is a way of doing business that tends to lead to long term success, and that is what some of us wanted to follow.. We are not saying there are guarantees, but when you follow that path, things tend to either work out, or leave you options to adjust for long term success...

We have data to help support why building around carmelo or building this way will not get us our ultimate goal of a championship.. so while it makes you all warm and fuzzy to win 50 games and root for a guy who you think is a superstar, a lebron equalizer, a once in a life time player, and fizzle out in the playoffs, it is not what we paid for, and honestly is not getting us any closer to a ring...

The only data you have is the team could have been OKC which is rare, and hard to do when when gave up the 2011 which Houston definitely would have swppaed with us, and 2012 picks which only was protected top 7, and it's been a while since the Knicks have picked that low.

The first draft for the Knicks would have been this draft which is slated to not have any franchise talent.

You claims other teams future is bright, all i see is an opinion.

Houston is still trying to get a top player, maybe they do, maybe they dont.

The Bobcats stink

The Wizards and cavs have been in the lottery for a while with little to show for it....recordwise.

I'm sure you would be fine with the Knicks being terrible for a few years.

<looks at your sig and wonder why am i discussing this with you>

ok, here is an exercise... find me one team, that traded away multiple picks and players to acquire one player on a team and not having a conerstone player they drafted themselves... and actually won a title...

You claims other teams future is bright, all i see is an opinion.

Houston is still trying to get a top player, maybe they do, maybe they dont.

The Bobcats stink

The Wizards and cavs have been in the lottery for a while with little to show for it....recordwise.

I'm sure you would be fine with the Knicks being terrible for a few years.

you just don't get it.. Houston has a Player in Harden that would easily be the best player on the knicks.. they have youth, and flexibility... you do understand that they are not wishing like knick fans are, they are not trying to trade tyson chandler and 14 mil a year contract for young stud players.. they are making plans to add guys like dwight Howard to an already good team... would you not want to be in that situation?

The bobcats stink? but they have a load of talent, they won't stink for long, but guess what, the warriors don't stink... why pick one example..

the wizards and cavs were also playoff teams while we were playing bend over with isiah and dolan, they lost players like arenas and lebron, now they went back to the draft to reload and guess what, they have... kyrie irving would also be the best player on the knicks, and I am sure knicks fans would cream their pants to get their hands on bradley beal...

the knicks didn't and weren't going to be terrible, before the trade were we terrible? we were 28-26, is that terrible.. again, you are basing your argument on situations that just didn't exist..

you wouldn't trade rosters with the cavs or Rockets? really? I would

They were 28-26 with Amare playing at an mvp level. Take Amare from today, and yes we were terrible.

tkf wrote:

ok, here is an exercise... find me one team, that traded away multiple picks and players to acquire one player on a team and not having a conerstone player they drafted themselves... and actually won a title...

you just don't get it.. Houston has a Player in Harden that would easily be the best player on the knicks.. they have youth, and flexibility... you do understand that they are not wishing like knick fans are, they are not trying to trade tyson chandler and 14 mil a year contract for young stud players.. they are making plans to add guys like dwight Howard to an already good team... would you not want to be in that situation?

The bobcats stink? but they have a load of talent, they won't stink for long, but guess what, the warriors don't stink... why pick one example..

the wizards and cavs were also playoff teams while we were playing bend over with isiah and dolan, they lost players like arenas and lebron, now they went back to the draft to reload and guess what, they have... kyrie irving would also be the best player on the knicks, and I am sure knicks fans would cream their pants to get their hands on bradley beal...

the knicks didn't and weren't going to be terrible, before the trade were we terrible? we were 28-26, is that terrible.. again, you are basing your argument on situations that just didn't exist..

you wouldn't trade rosters with the cavs or Rockets? really? I would

It takes more than a drafted player on your team to win a title, you know it and i do as well, and based on that question you're conceding Houston wont win a title no matter what they do, because their drafted players wont be the contribnuting factor to winning one.

So throw Houston out the mix, they are buying their players, they aren't building with the draft, they are stockpiling for trades.

the Knicks were not gonna make the playoffs man, amare was already noted as being "tired" by his own coach, and seeing what we see now, they absolutely would have been bad, and way to go ignoring the two picks that Walsh traded away.

The Bocats have been irrelevant since being in the league.

The thing is you're comparing situations, the cavs want to be where the knicks are so do the wizards.

Only Knicks fans believe it doom and gloom.

All of those teams want players to help them win, they dont wanna stay in the draft.

Knixkik wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:All i read is lebron or nothing, and maybe hope we could have gotten one of the players who's been traded in that time.

The problem with that is meanwhile you dropping off lotto picks to Houston in 2011 and 2012.

Well I guess you weren't here until last summer and you may not realize the players I've said we should target. I've listed players ranging from under-valued talents like Harden to under-valued role players like Reddick, and, more importantly, I've indicated how I evaluate players.

based on the trades made, we never had the assets to get them.

We disagree. If the team had spent 3 years building assets (including using the right info. to evaluate draft picks), we'd have plenty of assets. But we're entering untestable territory. Obviously, every option I propose you're going to say was impossible and you're going to say the future just couldn't possibly be brighter than it is.

this chat can't lead anywhere. my two cents: you never, EVER trade for a guy you can't build a winner around, that guy being carmelo anthony. if you must acquire this sort of player it should only be for cash. for that reason alone-- knowing that you cannot win with this guy is reason enough to conclude that an alternate plan NOT involving him would be brighter and better.

If your only argument is "you can't build around the guy" that's not a good one, because its only an opinion. So far he has proven you can build a good playoff team and a division winner around him, with no other star players. Your statement will never be validated until he is towards the end of his career. Remember, the same things were said about Dirk and Pierce. It's easy for people to forget, i know.

i was taught that somewhere between truth and falsehood there was a realm called opinion. and that there is such a thing as right opinion and wrong opinion.

you say it is my opinion that the team would be better off not having traded for this guy. well if you don't mind i will agree that it is my opinion but will add that it is the right opinion in that it actually coincides with reality.

or, if you wish, it is right opinion that you cannot build around carmelo as the main guy. that right opinion is based on the evidence he presented to the fanbase: a perennial playoff loser. dirk and pierce have proven they are better players regardless of who they had helping them. dirk made it out of the first round 5 times in 10 years prior to winning it all. pierce made it out of the first round twice in the first seven years of his career-- and with worse teammates than anthony had from day 1. interestingly, when it came down to it, pierce and ainge agreed to have pierce remain. make of it what you will.

Knixkik wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:All i read is lebron or nothing, and maybe hope we could have gotten one of the players who's been traded in that time.

The problem with that is meanwhile you dropping off lotto picks to Houston in 2011 and 2012.

Well I guess you weren't here until last summer and you may not realize the players I've said we should target. I've listed players ranging from under-valued talents like Harden to under-valued role players like Reddick, and, more importantly, I've indicated how I evaluate players.

based on the trades made, we never had the assets to get them.

We disagree. If the team had spent 3 years building assets (including using the right info. to evaluate draft picks), we'd have plenty of assets. But we're entering untestable territory. Obviously, every option I propose you're going to say was impossible and you're going to say the future just couldn't possibly be brighter than it is.

this chat can't lead anywhere. my two cents: you never, EVER trade for a guy you can't build a winner around, that guy being carmelo anthony. if you must acquire this sort of player it should only be for cash. for that reason alone-- knowing that you cannot win with this guy is reason enough to conclude that an alternate plan NOT involving him would be brighter and better.

If your only argument is "you can't build around the guy" that's not a good one, because its only an opinion. So far he has proven you can build a good playoff team and a division winner around him, with no other star players. Your statement will never be validated until he is towards the end of his career. Remember, the same things were said about Dirk and Pierce. It's easy for people to forget, i know.

i was taught that somewhere between truth and falsehood there was a realm called opinion. and that there is such a thing as right opinion and wrong opinion.

you say it is my opinion that the team would be better off not having traded for this guy. well if you don't mind i will agree that it is my opinion but will add that it is the right opinion in that it actually coincides with reality.

or, if you wish, it is right opinion that you cannot build around carmelo as the main guy. that right opinion is based on the evidence he presented to the fanbase: a perennial playoff loser. dirk and pierce have proven they are better players regardless of who they had helping them. dirk made it out of the first round 5 times in 10 years prior to winning it all. pierce made it out of the first round twice in the first seven years of his career-- and with worse teammates than anthony had from day 1. interestingly, when it came down to it, pierce and ainge agreed to have pierce remain. make of it what you will.

I understand it is your opinion, but to say that ANY alternative plan to building around Melo is a better option because you believe you can't build a team with Melo is pretty rediculous. Believe it or not, not every alternative plan was going to get us past 54 wins and past the 2nd round. Just ask the other 22 teams in the league who didn't make it to the 2nd round how easy it is to build a team that will make it that far.

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:All i read is lebron or nothing, and maybe hope we could have gotten one of the players who's been traded in that time.

The problem with that is meanwhile you dropping off lotto picks to Houston in 2011 and 2012.

Well I guess you weren't here until last summer and you may not realize the players I've said we should target. I've listed players ranging from under-valued talents like Harden to under-valued role players like Reddick, and, more importantly, I've indicated how I evaluate players.

based on the trades made, we never had the assets to get them.

We disagree. If the team had spent 3 years building assets (including using the right info. to evaluate draft picks), we'd have plenty of assets. But we're entering untestable territory. Obviously, every option I propose you're going to say was impossible and you're going to say the future just couldn't possibly be brighter than it is.

this chat can't lead anywhere. my two cents: you never, EVER trade for a guy you can't build a winner around, that guy being carmelo anthony. if you must acquire this sort of player it should only be for cash. for that reason alone-- knowing that you cannot win with this guy is reason enough to conclude that an alternate plan NOT involving him would be brighter and better.

If your only argument is "you can't build around the guy" that's not a good one, because its only an opinion. So far he has proven you can build a good playoff team and a division winner around him, with no other star players. Your statement will never be validated until he is towards the end of his career. Remember, the same things were said about Dirk and Pierce. It's easy for people to forget, i know.

i was taught that somewhere between truth and falsehood there was a realm called opinion. and that there is such a thing as right opinion and wrong opinion.

you say it is my opinion that the team would be better off not having traded for this guy. well if you don't mind i will agree that it is my opinion but will add that it is the right opinion in that it actually coincides with reality.

or, if you wish, it is right opinion that you cannot build around carmelo as the main guy. that right opinion is based on the evidence he presented to the fanbase: a perennial playoff loser. dirk and pierce have proven they are better players regardless of who they had helping them. dirk made it out of the first round 5 times in 10 years prior to winning it all. pierce made it out of the first round twice in the first seven years of his career-- and with worse teammates than anthony had from day 1. interestingly, when it came down to it, pierce and ainge agreed to have pierce remain. make of it what you will.

I understand it is your opinion, but to say that ANY alternative plan to building around Melo is a better option because you believe you can't build a team with Melo is pretty rediculous. Believe it or not, not every alternative plan was going to get us past 54 wins and past the 2nd round. Just ask the other 22 teams in the league who didn't make it to the 2nd round how easy it is to build a team that will make it that far.

No one is saying that "any" alternative plan would be better. Obviously some plans would have been worse. Unless you go 0-82, there were obviously worse plans available.

See bold above. An alternative plan not involving Anthony does not make it a good plan. In fact, most if not all realistic alternative plans never allow us to win 54 games, win the atlantic division, and win a playoff series, at least for the forseeable future. If the goal is only to keep options open, maintain "assets" and so on, then you can say not making the trade was the right move. If the goal is to become a good team in the near future, it was a no brainer.

i'd rather have not been a better than average team in the near future knowing that the ceiling is an ecf appearance. i would have preferred a slower, deliberate rebuild over 3-5 years. making the first round of the playoffs is easy since more than 50% of the teams are allowed into the playoffs. winning the division is a nice goal but not the same as being a conference champion. that to me is worth waiting another 3-5 years for.

but i understand that most modern knick fans are as impatient as the owner and really follow the knicks for entertainment purposes only-- a distraction from the humdrum of daily existence.

the knicks won their titles by playing basketball the right way-- defense first, boxing out, moving the ball, sharing the ball. it worked then and guess what it is still what works.

so if i had my druthers i would rather see a team coalesce around these principles, with gms, coaches, and players who all agree that this is what works and to work towards those standards. eventually teams like that become the elite 4-5 teams in the league, with a better odds of winning titles.

the knicks were not an elite team and do not appear to be moving in that direction anytime soon. no, making it to the second round does not make you one of the top 4-5 teams with better odds of winning a title.

they are the next tier down, somewhere around 6-10th best, otherwise known as "also-rans."

dk7th wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:All i read is lebron or nothing, and maybe hope we could have gotten one of the players who's been traded in that time.

The problem with that is meanwhile you dropping off lotto picks to Houston in 2011 and 2012.

Well I guess you weren't here until last summer and you may not realize the players I've said we should target. I've listed players ranging from under-valued talents like Harden to under-valued role players like Reddick, and, more importantly, I've indicated how I evaluate players.

based on the trades made, we never had the assets to get them.

We disagree. If the team had spent 3 years building assets (including using the right info. to evaluate draft picks), we'd have plenty of assets. But we're entering untestable territory. Obviously, every option I propose you're going to say was impossible and you're going to say the future just couldn't possibly be brighter than it is.

this chat can't lead anywhere. my two cents: you never, EVER trade for a guy you can't build a winner around, that guy being carmelo anthony. if you must acquire this sort of player it should only be for cash. for that reason alone-- knowing that you cannot win with this guy is reason enough to conclude that an alternate plan NOT involving him would be brighter and better.

If your only argument is "you can't build around the guy" that's not a good one, because its only an opinion. So far he has proven you can build a good playoff team and a division winner around him, with no other star players. Your statement will never be validated until he is towards the end of his career. Remember, the same things were said about Dirk and Pierce. It's easy for people to forget, i know.

i was taught that somewhere between truth and falsehood there was a realm called opinion. and that there is such a thing as right opinion and wrong opinion.

you say it is my opinion that the team would be better off not having traded for this guy. well if you don't mind i will agree that it is my opinion but will add that it is the right opinion in that it actually coincides with reality.

or, if you wish, it is right opinion that you cannot build around carmelo as the main guy. that right opinion is based on the evidence he presented to the fanbase: a perennial playoff loser. dirk and pierce have proven they are better players regardless of who they had helping them. dirk made it out of the first round 5 times in 10 years prior to winning it all. pierce made it out of the first round twice in the first seven years of his career-- and with worse teammates than anthony had from day 1. interestingly, when it came down to it, pierce and ainge agreed to have pierce remain. make of it what you will.

I understand it is your opinion, but to say that ANY alternative plan to building around Melo is a better option because you believe you can't build a team with Melo is pretty rediculous. Believe it or not, not every alternative plan was going to get us past 54 wins and past the 2nd round. Just ask the other 22 teams in the league who didn't make it to the 2nd round how easy it is to build a team that will make it that far.

No one is saying that "any" alternative plan would be better. Obviously some plans would have been worse. Unless you go 0-82, there were obviously worse plans available.

See bold above. An alternative plan not involving Anthony does not make it a good plan. In fact, most if not all realistic alternative plans never allow us to win 54 games, win the atlantic division, and win a playoff series, at least for the forseeable future. If the goal is only to keep options open, maintain "assets" and so on, then you can say not making the trade was the right move. If the goal is to become a good team in the near future, it was a no brainer.

i'd rather have not been a better than average team in the near future knowing that the ceiling is an ecf appearance. i would have preferred a slower, deliberate rebuild over 3-5 years. making the first round of the playoffs is easy since more than 50% of the teams are allowed into the playoffs. winning the division is a nice goal but not the same as being a conference champion. that to me is worth waiting another 3-5 years for.
but i understand that most modern knick fans are as impatient as the owner and really follow the knicks for entertainment purposes only-- a distraction from the humdrum of daily existence.

the knicks won their titles by playing basketball the right way-- defense first, boxing out, moving the ball, sharing the ball. it worked then and guess what it is still what works.

so if i had my druthers i would rather see a team coalesce around these principles, with gms, coaches, and players who all agree that this is what works and to work towards those standards. eventually teams like that become the elite 4-5 teams in the league, with a better odds of winning titles.

the knicks were not an elite team and do not appear to be moving in that direction anytime soon. no, making it to the second round does not make you one of the top 4-5 teams with better odds of winning a title.

they are the next tier down, somewhere around 6-10th best, otherwise known as "also-rans."

If you could say for definite that in 3-5 years you would be a contender or a conference champion as you put it, then of course you go that route. However, keep in mind every other team in the league has pretty much the same goal, and odds of actually accomplishing that feat is possible, but highly unlikely. So you are spending 3-5 years for something that has a very low chance of happening, and you are more likely to be wasting that 3-5 years then actually accomplishing that goal. You realize that right? You making it seem like a slow, steady rebuild guarantees this type of success in due time, yet there are teams who have been struggling under this plan for a decade.