[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

The good team Donnie Walsh built was primarily through the draft
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 2 of 3 ‹ Previous 1  2  3 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
6/13/2008  2:15 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:

[quote]
Posted by islesfan:

There is Briggs' fairy tale story on how Walsh built the Pacers and then there's the truth.



Islesfan I guess we can make believe that Reggie Miller Rik Smits Dale Davis and Antonio Davis were placed on the Pacers by osmosis and they werent the team that beat the Knicks more than we beat them? In your world pick 11 is not a high draft pick that it's close to 16 so it should be considered a low pick or something? Sorry there is no argument here--the facts are in black and white--they core of the team was produced through draft and yes Chuck Person was the player that was drafted that helped start the turn around there. I guess you can make up anything you want but that is the true history.
Im sorry isiah and misterearl are gone--you need a negative source to spew on but I wouldn't pick a dude who knows just a tad more than yourself:)

What's make believe is how you think Reggie Miller, Dale Davis and Antonio Davis were placed on the Pacers. Your fake premise is that they were all high lottery picks. Instead of a false generalization like that, I explained exactly how each of the main players on those Pacers teams were brought in. Allow me to break it down even further using those 4 players you just mentioned.

Reggie Miller - 11th overall pick in 1988. There were 23 picks in the first round back then, which makes 11th a middle of the first round pick. There were also only 7 lottery teams so pick 11 isn't a "high lottery pick".

Rik Smits - 2nd overall pick in 1989. That's a "high lottery pick".

Antonio Davis - 45th overall pick in 1990 and the 18th pick of the 2nd round. Not even remotely close to being a "high lottery pick".

Dale Davis - 13th overall pick in 1991. There were 27 picks in the first round back then, which makes 13th a middle of the first round pick. There were 11 lottery teams, so pick 13 isn't a "high lottery pick".

None of the other important players on those teams were taken with "high lottery picks". I already explained how they were brought in. The point is that Walsh didn't depend on high lottery picks to build that team, as you continue to assert. The facts are in black and white and I've explained how they acquired the players on those teams. Walsh and Brown proved that you can build a good team using middle of the first round picks and beyond, along with trades and free agents. Basically, he used every method available to acquire players. It wasn't so rigid of a blueprint that it depended solely on high lottery picks. In the Pacers case, their one high lottery pick on those teams, wasn't even their franchise player.

I don't know how else to explain Walsh's Indiana blueprint. For the first 8 years in Indiana, Walsh had very little success. The passive Indy media was moved to ridicule him by saying that he was building contenders elsewhere. Then he made some good picks outside of the lottery, made a couple of good trades, signed a few key free agents and most importantly hired Larry Brown. That's when it all started to click.

For some reason you want to give Chuck Person credit when they remained a .500 team the season after he left and then made the jump in Larry Brown's first year, 2 years removed from Person. In the Person years, they added Smits, Miller and most importantly replaced George Irvine with Jack Ramsey. Those were the biggest reasons why they went from a bad team to barely mediocre. It's insane to give him any credit for the teams that went to the ECF's. If the Blazers make the ECF's next year, I assume you'll be giving Randolph all this credit.

Sorry Briggs but it's not just me who thinks you contradict yourself all the time. It's not just what you know, it's how you logically interpret it. I've done nothing but offer facts, you just keep on harping on generalizations and making things up as you go along. I'd love it if you could stick to the facts for once and prove that you actually do know anything about basketball.
If it didn’t work in Phoenix with Nash and Stoutamire... it’s just not a winning formula. It’s an entertaining formula, but not a winning one. - Derek Harper talking about D'Antoni's System
AUTOADVERT
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
6/13/2008  2:23 PM
[quote]
Posted by islesfan:

[quote]Posted by BRIGGS:

[quote]
Posted by islesfan:



It's pretty simple--the blueprint for the Pacers success came through the draft with solid high picks and some keep trades.Whether it be a very high draft pick or a high draft pick--I think we can agree picks in the 11-13 area are high picks and that 2-4 are vERY high. Don't ask me about Chuck Person--go listen to how Donnie Walsh talks about Chuck Person. The Pacers were bad fopr 12-13 years before he arrived and he helped start their very long playoff run. He did not end up on the really great teams kind of like Marc Jackson with the Knicks but nevertheless an important cog in getting it started. Like I said there is no disputing facts --you can believe 11 is a high pick or a very high pcik that does not matter--what matters was that it was the blueprint for their sucess. Without Smits and Miller--the Pacers are nobody.
RIP Crushalot😞
newyorknewyork
Posts: 30259
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #541
6/13/2008  2:36 PM
Posted by TMS:
Posted by BRIGGS:

1986 Chuck Person #4 6-9
1987 Reggie Miller#11 6-8
1988 Rik Smits #2 7-3
1989 Georgo McCloud #7 6-8
1990 Anontio Davis #45 6-9
1991 Dale Davis #13 6-11
1992 Malik Sealy #14 6-7
1993 Scott Haskin #15 6-11[bust]
1994 Eric Piatkowski #15[traded with Sealy and Pooh Ricardon for Marc Jackson]
1995 Travis Best # 23 5-11 Fred Hoiberg #53
1996 Eric Dampierpick # 10 6-11
1997 Austin Croshere #12 6-9
1998 Al Harrington #25 6-9

acquired Jalen Rose via trade
acquired Jermaine Oneal via trade
acquired Ron Artest via trade


so this whole run Indiana made was through the draft and a few keen trades---key free agency acquistions---NONE ZERO NADA note almost every player Walsh drafted was a big player 6-8+


So this is his blueprint for success--having the high lottery pick and making solid use of it--taking big players and making a few keen trades. This is usually the oundation of every good team. This was a patient process but it yielded a long run in the playoffs with teams that had the ability to win it. At 68 years old I would find it hard to believe that he would change his own blueprint for success or could even have that ability. It's clear history says to take a high quality pick

[Edited by - BRIGGS on 06-13-2008 12:38 AM]

you know i'm not purposely trying to pick on every post you make but damn, you are 1 confusing mofo... you called Al Harrington garbage when i was making trade proposal after trade proposal to try & get him here to NY over the past couple years... why are you even pointing him out in your list of good players that Walsh drafted then? you're doing the same thing w/Danilo Gallinari now, calling him out as soft & a future bust 1 day & then including him in your top 15 list the next... then when i ask you to clarify you get offended & make some comment dissing my knowledge of the game... all i ask for is a little consistency, i don't think that's too much to ask dude.

He did name Eric Piakowski, Austin Croshere, Travis Best, Eric Dampier so I don't think he was only naming players who were good. Some of those guys were decent but nothing special. I think he just named everyone he picked.

Islesfan when Isiah was here you were the biggest advocate of building a team through the draft. Thats all Briggs is trying to be an advocate for here. So I don't get why you are going out of your way to disagree with him.

Brown doesn't have success without the talent that Walsh was able to get him. Brown didn't win more than 23games with the Knicks when he was here. Obviously players have a lot to do with the success of a coach.

Walsh was able to go to the finals with Jax,Miller,Rose,Davis,Smits,Davis. Then retooled and changed the roster over to Tinsley,Jackson,Artest,J'Oneal,Miller,Bender doing so with Isiah Thomas as the coach. Knowing many guys view of Isiah Thomas that should be a big plus alone.

Also didn't Larry Bird's Pistons have the best record in the east or even the NBA in the lockout shorted yr then lost to the Knicks in our finals run, Walsh must have built a quality team.
https://vote.nba.com/en Vote for your Knicks.
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
6/13/2008  2:48 PM
Posted by newyorknewyork:
Posted by TMS:
Posted by BRIGGS:

1986 Chuck Person #4 6-9
1987 Reggie Miller#11 6-8
1988 Rik Smits #2 7-3
1989 Georgo McCloud #7 6-8
1990 Anontio Davis #45 6-9
1991 Dale Davis #13 6-11
1992 Malik Sealy #14 6-7
1993 Scott Haskin #15 6-11[bust]
1994 Eric Piatkowski #15[traded with Sealy and Pooh Ricardon for Marc Jackson]
1995 Travis Best # 23 5-11 Fred Hoiberg #53
1996 Eric Dampierpick # 10 6-11
1997 Austin Croshere #12 6-9
1998 Al Harrington #25 6-9

acquired Jalen Rose via trade
acquired Jermaine Oneal via trade
acquired Ron Artest via trade


so this whole run Indiana made was through the draft and a few keen trades---key free agency acquistions---NONE ZERO NADA note almost every player Walsh drafted was a big player 6-8+


So this is his blueprint for success--having the high lottery pick and making solid use of it--taking big players and making a few keen trades. This is usually the oundation of every good team. This was a patient process but it yielded a long run in the playoffs with teams that had the ability to win it. At 68 years old I would find it hard to believe that he would change his own blueprint for success or could even have that ability. It's clear history says to take a high quality pick

[Edited by - BRIGGS on 06-13-2008 12:38 AM]

you know i'm not purposely trying to pick on every post you make but damn, you are 1 confusing mofo... you called Al Harrington garbage when i was making trade proposal after trade proposal to try & get him here to NY over the past couple years... why are you even pointing him out in your list of good players that Walsh drafted then? you're doing the same thing w/Danilo Gallinari now, calling him out as soft & a future bust 1 day & then including him in your top 15 list the next... then when i ask you to clarify you get offended & make some comment dissing my knowledge of the game... all i ask for is a little consistency, i don't think that's too much to ask dude.

He did name Eric Piakowski, Austin Croshere, Travis Best, Eric Dampier so I don't think he was only naming players who were good. Some of those guys were decent but nothing special. I think he just named everyone he picked.

Islesfan when Isiah was here you were the biggest advocate of building a team through the draft. Thats all Briggs is trying to be an advocate for here. So I don't get why you are going out of your way to disagree with him.

Brown doesn't have success without the talent that Walsh was able to get him. Brown didn't win more than 23games with the Knicks when he was here. Obviously players have a lot to do with the success of a coach.

Walsh was able to go to the finals with Jax,Miller,Rose,Davis,Smits,Davis. Then retooled and changed the roster over to Tinsley,Jackson,Artest,J'Oneal,Miller,Bender doing so with Isiah Thomas as the coach. Knowing many guys view of Isiah Thomas that should be a big plus alone.

Also didn't Larry Bird's Pistons have the best record in the east or even the NBA in the lockout shorted yr then lost to the Knicks in our finals run, Walsh must have built a quality team.

Bingo---->Islesfan when Isiah was here you were the biggest advocate of building a team through the draft. Thats all Briggs is trying to be an advocate for here. So I don't get why you are going out of your way to disagree with him

The Pacer team was built primarily through the draft-there is no denying that. The reason why islesfan is posting is because he wants to move the 6th pick for the 16th to get rid of Randolph and I dont agree with it.
The other reason whY i posted was this was how Walsh had his suceess. He drafted a lot of good big players with high picks. He wasnt trading down or out[until he was in position to do so with Jackson]he was building the foundation with draft picks. If he changes this method now--he goes into uncharted territory and ther Pacers have been bad the last few years. That is why we have to take a wait and see approach.
RIP Crushalot😞
islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
6/13/2008  2:58 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:

[quote]
Posted by islesfan:

[quote]Posted by BRIGGS:

[quote]
Posted by islesfan:



It's pretty simple--the blueprint for the Pacers success came through the draft with solid high picks and some keep trades.Whether it be a very high draft pick or a high draft pick--I think we can agree picks in the 11-13 area are high picks and that 2-4 are vERY high. Don't ask me about Chuck Person--go listen to how Donnie Walsh talks about Chuck Person. The Pacers were bad fopr 12-13 years before he arrived and he helped start their very long playoff run. He did not end up on the really great teams kind of like Marc Jackson with the Knicks but nevertheless an important cog in getting it started. Like I said there is no disputing facts --you can believe 11 is a high pick or a very high pcik that does not matter--what matters was that it was the blueprint for their sucess. Without Smits and Miller--the Pacers are nobody.

If 11 and 13 are "high picks" then so is 16th this year. Miller was a middle of the first round pick, your semantics don't change that. I also noticed that you finally stopped using "high lottery picks" which was a huge misrepresentation on your part.

"Whether it be a very high draft pick or a high draft pick"

There you go contradicting yourself again. I say that they can get a good player with the 6th or 16th pick and you freak out saying that they can't. Now it doesn't seem to matter. Why? Because it's not just about where you pick, it's how wise you are with the pick and how good players, even Hall of Fame players like Miller, drop to you.

You are seriously insane with this Chuck Person stuff. His first year, which coincided with Jack Ramsey replacing George Irvine, they won 41 games and made the playoffs losing 3-1. In his second year, they drafted Miller, who came off the bench, and dropped to 38 wins and missed the playoffs. In his third year, they drafted Smits, lost 23 of their first 29 games and dropped even further to 28 wins. In his fourth year, Miller broke out and they won 42 games and were swept in the first round. In his 5th year, they won 41 games and lost to the Celtics in 5 games with Person having a great series (I assume this is why you think he deserves a decade's worth of credit for teams he wasn't even on). In Person's 6th season in Indiana, the team won 40 games, got swept in the playoffs and traded Person for Pooh Richardson and Sam Mitchell. The next year, despite Smits and Miller playing at all star levels, they only won 41 games. Then the following year they hired Larry Brown and took off. Person was a nice player in his short time there but he didn't have close to the impact that you're trying to say he did. By the time Larry Brown was there and they were in the ECF's, Person was a distant memory who had absolutely nothing to do with why they were there.
If it didn’t work in Phoenix with Nash and Stoutamire... it’s just not a winning formula. It’s an entertaining formula, but not a winning one. - Derek Harper talking about D'Antoni's System
islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
6/13/2008  3:08 PM
Posted by newyorknewyork:
Posted by TMS:
Posted by BRIGGS:

1986 Chuck Person #4 6-9
1987 Reggie Miller#11 6-8
1988 Rik Smits #2 7-3
1989 Georgo McCloud #7 6-8
1990 Anontio Davis #45 6-9
1991 Dale Davis #13 6-11
1992 Malik Sealy #14 6-7
1993 Scott Haskin #15 6-11[bust]
1994 Eric Piatkowski #15[traded with Sealy and Pooh Ricardon for Marc Jackson]
1995 Travis Best # 23 5-11 Fred Hoiberg #53
1996 Eric Dampierpick # 10 6-11
1997 Austin Croshere #12 6-9
1998 Al Harrington #25 6-9

acquired Jalen Rose via trade
acquired Jermaine Oneal via trade
acquired Ron Artest via trade


so this whole run Indiana made was through the draft and a few keen trades---key free agency acquistions---NONE ZERO NADA note almost every player Walsh drafted was a big player 6-8+


So this is his blueprint for success--having the high lottery pick and making solid use of it--taking big players and making a few keen trades. This is usually the oundation of every good team. This was a patient process but it yielded a long run in the playoffs with teams that had the ability to win it. At 68 years old I would find it hard to believe that he would change his own blueprint for success or could even have that ability. It's clear history says to take a high quality pick

[Edited by - BRIGGS on 06-13-2008 12:38 AM]

you know i'm not purposely trying to pick on every post you make but damn, you are 1 confusing mofo... you called Al Harrington garbage when i was making trade proposal after trade proposal to try & get him here to NY over the past couple years... why are you even pointing him out in your list of good players that Walsh drafted then? you're doing the same thing w/Danilo Gallinari now, calling him out as soft & a future bust 1 day & then including him in your top 15 list the next... then when i ask you to clarify you get offended & make some comment dissing my knowledge of the game... all i ask for is a little consistency, i don't think that's too much to ask dude.

He did name Eric Piakowski, Austin Croshere, Travis Best, Eric Dampier so I don't think he was only naming players who were good. Some of those guys were decent but nothing special. I think he just named everyone he picked.

Islesfan when Isiah was here you were the biggest advocate of building a team through the draft. Thats all Briggs is trying to be an advocate for here. So I don't get why you are going out of your way to disagree with him.

Brown doesn't have success without the talent that Walsh was able to get him. Brown didn't win more than 23games with the Knicks when he was here. Obviously players have a lot to do with the success of a coach.

Walsh was able to go to the finals with Jax,Miller,Rose,Davis,Smits,Davis. Then retooled and changed the roster over to Tinsley,Jackson,Artest,J'Oneal,Miller,Bender doing so with Isiah Thomas as the coach. Knowing many guys view of Isiah Thomas that should be a big plus alone.

Also didn't Larry Bird's Pistons have the best record in the east or even the NBA in the lockout shorted yr then lost to the Knicks in our finals run, Walsh must have built a quality team.

newyorknewyork, he's not trying to say it's built through the draft, he's trying to say that it was built with high lottery picks. That's just not true.

For a week now, he's been crying about how much of a detriment it would be if the Knicks traded down to the middle of the first round. Now he's trying to explain Walsh's blueprint in Indiana, which wouldn't you know it, was aided greatly by middle of the first round picks and beyond. Walsh's "blueprint" consisted of JUST ONE HIGH LOTTERY PICK and even he wasn't their franchise player.

Briggs is contradicting himself again and making false generalizations in a weak attempt to prove his ever changing point. Why wouldn't I contest what he's saying?
If it didn’t work in Phoenix with Nash and Stoutamire... it’s just not a winning formula. It’s an entertaining formula, but not a winning one. - Derek Harper talking about D'Antoni's System
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
6/13/2008  3:15 PM
Posted by islesfan:

[quote]Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by islesfan:

[quote]Posted by BRIGGS:

[quote]
Posted by islesfan:



It's pretty simple--the blueprint for the Pacers success came through the draft with solid high picks and some keep trades.Whether it be a very high draft pick or a high draft pick--I think we can agree picks in the 11-13 area are high picks and that 2-4 are vERY high. Don't ask me about Chuck Person--go listen to how Donnie Walsh talks about Chuck Person. The Pacers were bad fopr 12-13 years before he arrived and he helped start their very long playoff run. He did not end up on the really great teams kind of like Marc Jackson with the Knicks but nevertheless an important cog in getting it started. Like I said there is no disputing facts --you can believe 11 is a high pick or a very high pcik that does not matter--what matters was that it was the blueprint for their sucess. Without Smits and Miller--the Pacers are nobody.

If 11 and 13 are "high picks" then so is 16th this year. Miller was a middle of the first round pick, your semantics don't change that. I also noticed that you finally stopped using "high lottery picks" which was a huge misrepresentation on your part.

"Whether it be a very high draft pick or a high draft pick"

There you go contradicting yourself again. I say that they can get a good player with the 6th or 16th pick and you freak out saying that they can't. Now it doesn't seem to matter. Why? Because it's not just about where you pick, it's how wise you are with the pick and how good players, even Hall of Fame players like Miller, drop to you.

You are seriously insane with this Chuck Person stuff. His first year, which coincided with Jack Ramsey replacing George Irvine, they won 41 games and made the playoffs losing 3-1. In his second year, they drafted Miller, who came off the bench, and dropped to 38 wins and missed the playoffs. In his third year, they drafted Smits, lost 23 of their first 29 games and dropped even further to 28 wins. In his fourth year, Miller broke out and they won 42 games and were swept in the first round. In his 5th year, they won 41 games and lost to the Celtics in 5 games with Person having a great series (I assume this is why you think he deserves a decade's worth of credit for teams he wasn't even on). In Person's 6th season in Indiana, the team won 40 games, got swept in the playoffs and traded Person for Pooh Richardson and Sam Mitchell. The next year, despite Smits and Miller playing at all star levels, they only won 41 games. Then the following year they hired Larry Brown and took off. Person was a nice player in his short time there but he didn't have close to the impact that you're trying to say he did. By the time Larry Brown was there and they were in the ECF's, Person was a distant memory who had absolutely nothing to do with why they were there.

Sorry that franchise had 9 out of 10 losing seasons before Chuck Person was drafted. Just like Marc Jackson with the Knicks he helped start the process but wasnt around to see the fruit and thats how it goes sometimes. They went to the playoffs 4 out of his 6 seasons and then took it to another level. The NBA has has almost always been about process concerning the playoffs. Chuck Person was a foundation piece into that process. Smits and Miller were the anchors.
RIP Crushalot😞
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
6/13/2008  3:19 PM
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by newyorknewyork:
Posted by TMS:
Posted by BRIGGS:

1986 Chuck Person #4 6-9
1987 Reggie Miller#11 6-8
1988 Rik Smits #2 7-3
1989 Georgo McCloud #7 6-8
1990 Anontio Davis #45 6-9
1991 Dale Davis #13 6-11
1992 Malik Sealy #14 6-7
1993 Scott Haskin #15 6-11[bust]
1994 Eric Piatkowski #15[traded with Sealy and Pooh Ricardon for Marc Jackson]
1995 Travis Best # 23 5-11 Fred Hoiberg #53
1996 Eric Dampierpick # 10 6-11
1997 Austin Croshere #12 6-9
1998 Al Harrington #25 6-9

acquired Jalen Rose via trade
acquired Jermaine Oneal via trade
acquired Ron Artest via trade


so this whole run Indiana made was through the draft and a few keen trades---key free agency acquistions---NONE ZERO NADA note almost every player Walsh drafted was a big player 6-8+


So this is his blueprint for success--having the high lottery pick and making solid use of it--taking big players and making a few keen trades. This is usually the oundation of every good team. This was a patient process but it yielded a long run in the playoffs with teams that had the ability to win it. At 68 years old I would find it hard to believe that he would change his own blueprint for success or could even have that ability. It's clear history says to take a high quality pick

[Edited by - BRIGGS on 06-13-2008 12:38 AM]

you know i'm not purposely trying to pick on every post you make but damn, you are 1 confusing mofo... you called Al Harrington garbage when i was making trade proposal after trade proposal to try & get him here to NY over the past couple years... why are you even pointing him out in your list of good players that Walsh drafted then? you're doing the same thing w/Danilo Gallinari now, calling him out as soft & a future bust 1 day & then including him in your top 15 list the next... then when i ask you to clarify you get offended & make some comment dissing my knowledge of the game... all i ask for is a little consistency, i don't think that's too much to ask dude.

He did name Eric Piakowski, Austin Croshere, Travis Best, Eric Dampier so I don't think he was only naming players who were good. Some of those guys were decent but nothing special. I think he just named everyone he picked.

Islesfan when Isiah was here you were the biggest advocate of building a team through the draft. Thats all Briggs is trying to be an advocate for here. So I don't get why you are going out of your way to disagree with him.

Brown doesn't have success without the talent that Walsh was able to get him. Brown didn't win more than 23games with the Knicks when he was here. Obviously players have a lot to do with the success of a coach.

Walsh was able to go to the finals with Jax,Miller,Rose,Davis,Smits,Davis. Then retooled and changed the roster over to Tinsley,Jackson,Artest,J'Oneal,Miller,Bender doing so with Isiah Thomas as the coach. Knowing many guys view of Isiah Thomas that should be a big plus alone.

Also didn't Larry Bird's Pistons have the best record in the east or even the NBA in the lockout shorted yr then lost to the Knicks in our finals run, Walsh must have built a quality team.

newyorknewyork, he's not trying to say it's built through the draft, he's trying to say that it was built with high lottery picks. That's just not true.

For a week now, he's been crying about how much of a detriment it would be if the Knicks traded down to the middle of the first round. Now he's trying to explain Walsh's blueprint in Indiana, which wouldn't you know it, was aided greatly by middle of the first round picks and beyond. Walsh's "blueprint" consisted of JUST ONE HIGH LOTTERY PICK and even he wasn't their franchise player.

Briggs is contradicting himself again and making false generalizations in a weak attempt to prove his ever changing point. Why wouldn't I contest what he's saying?

Islesfan--was was the name of this thread? And pick 11 and pick 13 are high picks--tell me in 1986 Reggie Miller was 11 out of how many players drafted? Do the math
RIP Crushalot😞
newyorknewyork
Posts: 30259
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #541
6/13/2008  3:24 PM
I see where you are coming from.

Its a lot harder to get a Reggie Miller in later rounds then in the past though.

on average for the last like 10yrs there is maybe 2-3 core players drafted #16 & later per yr. Some yrs only have 1, some yrs you get 3. Your chances of landing a core player really slim down. Thats why the #6 should be held at a slightly higher value if we were to trade it.

If we were to trade down to unload Randolph I really think getting another future pick or asset would be nessesary.
https://vote.nba.com/en Vote for your Knicks.
islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
6/13/2008  3:28 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by newyorknewyork:
Posted by TMS:
Posted by BRIGGS:

1986 Chuck Person #4 6-9
1987 Reggie Miller#11 6-8
1988 Rik Smits #2 7-3
1989 Georgo McCloud #7 6-8
1990 Anontio Davis #45 6-9
1991 Dale Davis #13 6-11
1992 Malik Sealy #14 6-7
1993 Scott Haskin #15 6-11[bust]
1994 Eric Piatkowski #15[traded with Sealy and Pooh Ricardon for Marc Jackson]
1995 Travis Best # 23 5-11 Fred Hoiberg #53
1996 Eric Dampierpick # 10 6-11
1997 Austin Croshere #12 6-9
1998 Al Harrington #25 6-9

acquired Jalen Rose via trade
acquired Jermaine Oneal via trade
acquired Ron Artest via trade


so this whole run Indiana made was through the draft and a few keen trades---key free agency acquistions---NONE ZERO NADA note almost every player Walsh drafted was a big player 6-8+


So this is his blueprint for success--having the high lottery pick and making solid use of it--taking big players and making a few keen trades. This is usually the oundation of every good team. This was a patient process but it yielded a long run in the playoffs with teams that had the ability to win it. At 68 years old I would find it hard to believe that he would change his own blueprint for success or could even have that ability. It's clear history says to take a high quality pick

[Edited by - BRIGGS on 06-13-2008 12:38 AM]

you know i'm not purposely trying to pick on every post you make but damn, you are 1 confusing mofo... you called Al Harrington garbage when i was making trade proposal after trade proposal to try & get him here to NY over the past couple years... why are you even pointing him out in your list of good players that Walsh drafted then? you're doing the same thing w/Danilo Gallinari now, calling him out as soft & a future bust 1 day & then including him in your top 15 list the next... then when i ask you to clarify you get offended & make some comment dissing my knowledge of the game... all i ask for is a little consistency, i don't think that's too much to ask dude.

He did name Eric Piakowski, Austin Croshere, Travis Best, Eric Dampier so I don't think he was only naming players who were good. Some of those guys were decent but nothing special. I think he just named everyone he picked.

Islesfan when Isiah was here you were the biggest advocate of building a team through the draft. Thats all Briggs is trying to be an advocate for here. So I don't get why you are going out of your way to disagree with him.

Brown doesn't have success without the talent that Walsh was able to get him. Brown didn't win more than 23games with the Knicks when he was here. Obviously players have a lot to do with the success of a coach.

Walsh was able to go to the finals with Jax,Miller,Rose,Davis,Smits,Davis. Then retooled and changed the roster over to Tinsley,Jackson,Artest,J'Oneal,Miller,Bender doing so with Isiah Thomas as the coach. Knowing many guys view of Isiah Thomas that should be a big plus alone.

Also didn't Larry Bird's Pistons have the best record in the east or even the NBA in the lockout shorted yr then lost to the Knicks in our finals run, Walsh must have built a quality team.

Bingo---->Islesfan when Isiah was here you were the biggest advocate of building a team through the draft. Thats all Briggs is trying to be an advocate for here. So I don't get why you are going out of your way to disagree with him

The Pacer team was built primarily through the draft-there is no denying that. The reason why islesfan is posting is because he wants to move the 6th pick for the 16th to get rid of Randolph and I dont agree with it.
The other reason whY i posted was this was how Walsh had his suceess. He drafted a lot of good big players with high picks. He wasnt trading down or out[until he was in position to do so with Jackson]he was building the foundation with draft picks. If he changes this method now--he goes into uncharted territory and ther Pacers have been bad the last few years. That is why we have to take a wait and see approach.

No, I was an advocate of building through the draft and with the flexibility that being under the cap offers. Notice I didn't just say "high lottery picks". I'd be willing to drop to 16 IF it meant getting rid of Zach Randolph. I'd love to trade Lee for a low lottery pick. I'd kill to trade Nate for any pick in the bottom of the first round. Hell, I want as many draft picks as possible but if it means getting rid of dead weight, I'll sacrifice spots.

Briggs on the other hand only wants high lottery picks and thinks that it's impossible to build a winner any other way. He tried to use Walsh's Pacers as an example but in actuality it proved my premise and contradicted his. Now he's trying to talk his way out of it with semantics using "very high" and "high". At least he backed off and dropped "lottery" when bringing up players not drafted in the lottery.

Briggs, who the hell is saying that they shouldn't build with draft picks??? I'm on record saying that if the Knicks had to give up the 6th and not get back at least the 16th pick then I wouldn't do it. I've never advocated getting rid of picks without getting something of great value back. This isn't a typical rebuild where you can wait for draft picks every year. This roster is so ****ed, with so many constraints, that we're forced to do some radical things in order to clean it up. We're already on the hook for the 2010 pick and with D'Antonio I don't see them optimizing their 2009 pick.

It wasn't just about "high lottery picks" for Walsh in Indiana and it can't be about just that now. He has to use every method available to turn over this roster and he's already stated that being under the cap in 2010 is his major long term goal. Those are his words, not mine. In order to do that he has to trade dead weight, there's no other way to get rid of them.

Sitting back and taking whatever pick the NBA says we get each year and enjoying entertaining mediocrity until these players come off the cap is not an option.
If it didn’t work in Phoenix with Nash and Stoutamire... it’s just not a winning formula. It’s an entertaining formula, but not a winning one. - Derek Harper talking about D'Antoni's System
islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
6/13/2008  3:29 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by islesfan:

[quote]Posted by BRIGGS:

[quote]Posted by islesfan:

[quote]Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by islesfan:



It's pretty simple--the blueprint for the Pacers success came through the draft with solid high picks and some keep trades.Whether it be a very high draft pick or a high draft pick--I think we can agree picks in the 11-13 area are high picks and that 2-4 are vERY high. Don't ask me about Chuck Person--go listen to how Donnie Walsh talks about Chuck Person. The Pacers were bad fopr 12-13 years before he arrived and he helped start their very long playoff run. He did not end up on the really great teams kind of like Marc Jackson with the Knicks but nevertheless an important cog in getting it started. Like I said there is no disputing facts --you can believe 11 is a high pick or a very high pcik that does not matter--what matters was that it was the blueprint for their sucess. Without Smits and Miller--the Pacers are nobody.

If 11 and 13 are "high picks" then so is 16th this year. Miller was a middle of the first round pick, your semantics don't change that. I also noticed that you finally stopped using "high lottery picks" which was a huge misrepresentation on your part.

"Whether it be a very high draft pick or a high draft pick"

There you go contradicting yourself again. I say that they can get a good player with the 6th or 16th pick and you freak out saying that they can't. Now it doesn't seem to matter. Why? Because it's not just about where you pick, it's how wise you are with the pick and how good players, even Hall of Fame players like Miller, drop to you.

You are seriously insane with this Chuck Person stuff. His first year, which coincided with Jack Ramsey replacing George Irvine, they won 41 games and made the playoffs losing 3-1. In his second year, they drafted Miller, who came off the bench, and dropped to 38 wins and missed the playoffs. In his third year, they drafted Smits, lost 23 of their first 29 games and dropped even further to 28 wins. In his fourth year, Miller broke out and they won 42 games and were swept in the first round. In his 5th year, they won 41 games and lost to the Celtics in 5 games with Person having a great series (I assume this is why you think he deserves a decade's worth of credit for teams he wasn't even on). In Person's 6th season in Indiana, the team won 40 games, got swept in the playoffs and traded Person for Pooh Richardson and Sam Mitchell. The next year, despite Smits and Miller playing at all star levels, they only won 41 games. Then the following year they hired Larry Brown and took off. Person was a nice player in his short time there but he didn't have close to the impact that you're trying to say he did. By the time Larry Brown was there and they were in the ECF's, Person was a distant memory who had absolutely nothing to do with why they were there.

Sorry that franchise had 9 out of 10 losing seasons before Chuck Person was drafted. Just like Marc Jackson with the Knicks he helped start the process but wasnt around to see the fruit and thats how it goes sometimes. They went to the playoffs 4 out of his 6 seasons and then took it to another level. The NBA has has almost always been about process concerning the playoffs. Chuck Person was a foundation piece into that process. Smits and Miller were the anchors.

So you think Zach Randolph is a foundation piece for whatever the Portland Trailblazers do over the next decade, right?
If it didn’t work in Phoenix with Nash and Stoutamire... it’s just not a winning formula. It’s an entertaining formula, but not a winning one. - Derek Harper talking about D'Antoni's System
islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
6/13/2008  3:35 PM
Posted by newyorknewyork:

I see where you are coming from.

Its a lot harder to get a Reggie Miller in later rounds then in the past though.

on average for the last like 10yrs there is maybe 2-3 core players drafted #16 & later per yr. Some yrs only have 1, some yrs you get 3. Your chances of landing a core player really slim down. Thats why the #6 should be held at a slightly higher value if we were to trade it.

If we were to trade down to unload Randolph I really think getting another future pick or asset would be nessesary.

There's also no guarantees with the 6th pick. This draft is a perfect example. There is no consensus about who to take with the 6th pick. We've heard about 6-8 different names of players that could legitimately be available at 6. Gordon, Westbrook, Love, Randolph, Gallinari, Augustine... Obviously those players can't all go at 6 so a player of that caliber will be available in the middle of the first round. If the Knicks can rid themselves of their biggest albatross player and contract by simply moving down into the middle of the first round, you have to do it.
If it didn’t work in Phoenix with Nash and Stoutamire... it’s just not a winning formula. It’s an entertaining formula, but not a winning one. - Derek Harper talking about D'Antoni's System
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
6/13/2008  4:29 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:

[quote]
Posted by islesfan:

There is Briggs' fairy tale story on how Walsh built the Pacers and then there's the truth.



Islesfan I guess we can make believe that Reggie Miller Rik Smits Dale Davis and Antonio Davis were placed on the Pacers by osmosis and they werent the team that beat the Knicks more than we beat them? In your world pick 11 is not a high draft pick that it's close to 16 so it should be considered a low pick or something? Sorry there is no argument here--the facts are in black and white--they core of the team was produced through draft and yes Chuck Person was the player that was drafted that helped start the turn around there. I guess you can make up anything you want but that is the true history.
Im sorry isiah and misterearl are gone--you need a negative source to spew on but I wouldn't pick a dude who knows just a tad more than yourself:)

1 of your typical responses whenever someone challenges you on your contradictions... whenever you resort to your digs on people's knowledge of basketball & boast about your own while refusing to logically explain those contradictions you're being questioned about, you expose yourself even further... & then you add your little snide smily afterwards to make it seem like you're saying this in a lighthearted manner rather than to insult... not even bothering to address a challenge is another... if you're trying to keep things on a civil level you may wanna keep the little snide comments to yourself & get off of your high horse, otherwise you're gonna get crap thrown back at you... you're just a fan of this team just like everyone else is so if u don't wanna respect other people's opinions don't expect anyone to respect yours.

- The Internet Bully
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
Finestrg
Posts: 27296
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/1/2006
Member: #1069
6/13/2008  5:13 PM
Wow. Gettin' pretty chippy around here. HAHA!!!!! Briggs and Isles both bring up good points.

Isles, nice job on chronicling the Pacer's accension for us - made for a good read. But Briggs' main overall point recently is a good one - we're a rebuilding team and should value our own pick above all else - keep the pick and draft the best overall talent that fits the style we'd all like to play now at #6 - a point I totally agree with. For me, I only wanna see Walsh either MOVE UP with #6 and anything else on the roster (except David Lee) a team might want (Curry, Nate, Chandler, Balkman, whoever...). It's been no secret Jerryd Bayless is my guy and I'd use #6 to move up to either the #3 or 4 spots in a heartbeat in order to get him. David Lee I use in a seperate deal however. I still wanna save Lee/filler in the hopes that we can swing a seperate deal to acquire AN ADDITIONAL PICK in this draft. But if nothing else is cookin', hold serve and draft the BPA at #6.

But under no circumstances whatsoever do I package #6 along with Zach Randolph just to get rid of Zach's contract. No way. Listen, I can understand why some guys wanna do it (I'm not a huge fan of Zach's game and his contract is truly disgusting) and believe me I respect your position on this guys, but to include #6 in a deal just to move Zach is really way too far. We're not talkin' Jalen Rose and a lowly 1st rounder to the Knicks for Antonio Davis here. We're talking the 6th pick on a rebuilding team that's trying to get itself out of the gutter. Right now, Zach stays unless there's a team out there that wants to swing a fair deal for our still relatively young 20/10 PF. If not, I pencil Zach in as my starting PF for now, let him continue to put up numbers and let his contract continue to dwindle. As long as he continues to put up numbers (which he will under D'Antoni - expect #s closer to what he was putting up in Portland) he'll evetually have real solid value - remember Denver, Milwaukee and now Phily have shown recent interest, hideous contract and all. As that contract continues to shrink though he'll have even better value - we just need to be patient. If nothing presents itself now hold serve, explore other options, and come back to moving Zach at a later time. The days of letting other teams Shanghai us are over. We've got well-respected guys with brains running the show now, at least I hope we do.

---------------

(1) Move up to get Bayless w/o using Lee.

(2) If Bayless isn't an option, Lee/filler to Portland for Sergio Rodriguez and #13 (I probably do this anyway even if we could snag Bayless somehow). Sergio's your new point, draft Anthony Rondolph at #6 take a chance on JaVale McGee at 13. Acquire yet another lower pick and go get JR Giddens, Courtney Lee or Shan Foster for additional firepower and a future replacement for Crawford.

(3) Comb the summer league, D-league and FA ranks for affordable role players other teams have given up on or might have run out of patience with - Justin Williams, Louis Amundson, Chris Rodgers, Von Wafer, Gerald Green

This wouldn't be bad:

1 - Sergio Rodriguez
2 - Jamal Crawford
3 - Anthony Randolph
4 - Zach Randolph (for now)
5 - Curry - eventually Javale McGee
----------
6 - JR Giddens, Shan Foster or Courtney Lee
7 - Justin Williams, Louis Amundson, Chris Rodgers, Von Wafer or Gerald Green

Instant rebuild right there. Young. Exciting. Multi-dimensional. Well balanced. A plan.



[Edited by - finestrg on 06-13-2008 5:53 PM]
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
6/13/2008  5:21 PM
Posted by Finestrg:

But under no circumstances whatsoever do I package #6 along with Zach Randolph just to get rid of Zach's contract. No way. Listen, I can understand why some guys wanna do it (I'm not a huge fan of Zach's game and his contract is truly disgusting) and believe me I respect your position on this guys, but to include #6 in a deal just to move Zach is really way too far. We're not talkin' Jalen Rose and a lowly 1st rounder to the Knicks for Antonio Davis here. We're talking the 6th pick on a rebuilding team that's trying to get itself out of the gutter.

but u can't look at it as that... moving down 10 slots in the lottery is pretty much akin to trading away a lower pick outright, isn't it? if anything at least you're still getting a quality prospect out of this... if this was a draft where we thought we could land a stud at #6 whereas we couldn't at #16 then i can see the argument but every report i've read has the top guys going before we're slotted to pick & everyone else in the top 20 grouping being anyone's guess.

if we could somehow trade up & land a Mayo or Beasley i'd be all for that too, but barring that i think it would make sense to get full value out of our pick & at least explore the option to trade down.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
Finestrg
Posts: 27296
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/1/2006
Member: #1069
6/13/2008  5:35 PM
Posted by TMS:
Posted by Finestrg:

But under no circumstances whatsoever do I package #6 along with Zach Randolph just to get rid of Zach's contract. No way. Listen, I can understand why some guys wanna do it (I'm not a huge fan of Zach's game and his contract is truly disgusting) and believe me I respect your position on this guys, but to include #6 in a deal just to move Zach is really way too far. We're not talkin' Jalen Rose and a lowly 1st rounder to the Knicks for Antonio Davis here. We're talking the 6th pick on a rebuilding team that's trying to get itself out of the gutter.

but u can't look at it as that... moving down 10 slots in the lottery is pretty much akin to trading away a lower pick outright, isn't it? if anything at least you're still getting a quality prospect out of this... if this was a draft where we thought we could land a stud at #6 whereas we couldn't at #16 then i can see the argument but every report i've read has the top guys going before we're slotted to pick & everyone else in the top 20 grouping being anyone's guess.

if we could somehow trade up & land a Mayo or Beasley i'd be all for that too, but barring that i think it would make sense to get full value out of our pick & at least explore the option to trade down.

Don't agree but we'll talk more later. Off to see The Happening now and wifey screaming at me to "get off the F______ computer!" HAHA!!!!! If I had a dime for everytime I get screamed at around here, I tell ya........ LOL!
Anji
Posts: 25523
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 4/14/2006
Member: #1122
USA
6/13/2008  6:34 PM
I can't believe dude is in here trying to front on the rifle man..............LOL
"Really, all Americans want is a cold beer, warm p***y, and some place to s**t with a door on it." - Mr. Ford
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
6/13/2008  6:44 PM
I think Walsh knows how to build a team. I don't believe that he has only one blueprint for it. It all depends on the circumstances he's being given. In our case he's got a lot of baggage he's inherited, so it may take a bit more creativity.

It starts with this pick and if he has to deal it, i'm hoping it's in an effort to get a higher pick or to get more than one pick. We have a roster that has some players that don't fit the coaches style and those that do. We all know that some of these guys will have to go. This rebuild can't be done simply by the draft IMO. Whether Walsh would prefer that or not, he's gonna have to use everything at his disposal.
Finestrg
Posts: 27296
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/1/2006
Member: #1069
6/14/2008  12:55 AM
Posted by Finestrg:
Posted by TMS:
Posted by Finestrg:

But under no circumstances whatsoever do I package #6 along with Zach Randolph just to get rid of Zach's contract. No way. Listen, I can understand why some guys wanna do it (I'm not a huge fan of Zach's game and his contract is truly disgusting) and believe me I respect your position on this guys, but to include #6 in a deal just to move Zach is really way too far. We're not talkin' Jalen Rose and a lowly 1st rounder to the Knicks for Antonio Davis here. We're talking the 6th pick on a rebuilding team that's trying to get itself out of the gutter.

but u can't look at it as that... moving down 10 slots in the lottery is pretty much akin to trading away a lower pick outright, isn't it? if anything at least you're still getting a quality prospect out of this... if this was a draft where we thought we could land a stud at #6 whereas we couldn't at #16 then i can see the argument but every report i've read has the top guys going before we're slotted to pick & everyone else in the top 20 grouping being anyone's guess.

if we could somehow trade up & land a Mayo or Beasley i'd be all for that too, but barring that i think it would make sense to get full value out of our pick & at least explore the option to trade down.

Don't agree but we'll talk more later. Off to see The Happening now and wifey screaming at me to "get off the F______ computer!" HAHA!!!!! If I had a dime for everytime I get screamed at around here, I tell ya........ LOL!

OK save your money and skip The Happening. An original premise and some rather stark images here and there but an overall weak entry in the M. Night Shamalyan collection. Signs was great. The Sixth Sense was good. Unbreakable was even better imho. And I actually have a soft spot for The Village and its overall originality and surprise ending. But after that.... I really think this guy's blown his load already.

Anyway back to business.... To answer your question "moving down 10 slots in the lottery is pretty much akin to trading away a lower pick, isn't it?" I would have to say absolutely not. I mean how do you figure? How is losing the 6th pick or a lower pick (16 is not in the lottery) the same thing??? The 6th pick in this draft is A MAJOR BUILDING BLOCK for any team, especially a team that's been lost at sea like the Knicks for years now - much more than a pick in the late teens or lower. And it's especially valuable to us considering the previous draft mistakes we've made recently like surrendering our high-end lottery pick to the Bulls in the Eddy Curry deal a few years ago (and don't think well it's ok, Tyrus Thomas doesn't look like much now - who's to say we would've taken Tyrus Thomas???), the smaller misfire of dealing this year's 2nd rounder to Portland for Demetris Nichols (a player we choose to cut outright just because he wouldn't go to Europe - a complete and utter waste, especially when you consider the talent that'll be there in this draft's 2nd round) and also let's not forget the first rounder we still owe Utah as part of the Stephon Marbury fiasco. With these recent blunders involving the draft still fresh in our minds - mistakes that have really set the organization back - you still think it's OK to just throw in our high-end lottery building block just for the sake of unloading a lousy contract??? We can't afford to do that...

I'm not trying to say a pick at #16 will be worthless - JaVale McGee and Jason Thompson really have the chance to be special and the rest of the guys projected to go around 16 should be rotation players in some capacity - but come on TMS, 10 slots is 10 slots. I actually think the drop off in player quality is fairly significant:

---Kevin Love (a multi-faceted, NBA-ready PF who Kevin McHale, as of a week or two ago, was considering taking at #3) vs. Marreese Speights (nice but a pure project)
---Anthony Randolph (multi-dimensional, can run/shoot/score/handle/block shots) vs. Donte Greene (a 3-pt. chucker who's clearly not ready for the NBA, has bad shot selection, can't put the ball on the floor or defend)
---Joe Alexander (Tough, NBA-ready SF that a lot of people around here love) vs. Chase Budinger (a softer, more layed back version of Alexander)
---OJ Mayo/Jerryd Bayless (provided we get lucky and either slips we hit a homerun) vs. DJ Augustin (nice talent but small and not nearly as talented as either Mayo or Bayless)
---Brook Lopez (not my favorite but a guy that still could go top 6 - he does have a lot of polish for a big man) vs. DeAndre Jordan (a project in every sense of the word)

-----------------------

I think our 6th pick should either be packaged in a deal to MOVE UP in order to get the player we need if that's what Donnie and Co. think (I know I do) or we should use the pick ourselves and make the best possible selection and go from there. Even a two for one swap as some have suggested isn't terrible (#6 to NJ for #10 & #21 for example). But I'm not using it as some kind of kicker to get some team to take Randolph's contract. Again, Zach has value, like him or not, and his value will continue to grow as he continues to put up numbers and that contract continues to dwindle. I agree with the premise that we'll be better off without him but we have to be patient - no panic moves and this scenario to get rid of him is A PANIC MOVE!!!! Use Zach to win ballgames while he's still here for the time being and continue to field offers until something makes much better sense.


[Edited by - finestrg on 06-14-2008 01:18 AM]
nyk4ever
Posts: 41010
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 1/12/2005
Member: #848
USA
6/14/2008  12:59 AM
Great post Finestrq...
"OMG - did we just go on a two-trade-wining-streak?" -SupremeCommander
Page 2 of 3 ‹ Previous 1  2  3 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
The good team Donnie Walsh built was primarily through the draft
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy