Posted by crzymdups:

Posted by TMS:

Posted by crzymdups:

Posted by TMS:

Posted by JohnWallace44:

Posted by crzymdups:

hmm, i wonder why walsh didn't select evans.

Yeah, Walsh has said that Evans was the second best player in the draft, so can't knock him there

didn't Walsh say he would have taken Curry at #5 if he were able to trade up in this draft?

evans was taken #4 overall, so taking Curry 5 wouldn't have been so bad.


look, Hill is a bit of a project. but he has a decent ceiling - i think he'll wind up being a dale davis/joe smith type. he can play a little d, hit the boards and run. you need guys like that. it's not a sexy pick, but he's improved drastically every year and there's no reason to think that won't continue.

i never complained about taking Hill even tho i was screaming for us to take DeRozan for the past year & a half... i agree Hill's got a pretty good ceiling & could turn out to be a very good player for us... but i still say DeRozan has a higher upside & has the potential to be a superstar in this league that can carry a team, something i don't really see from Hill.

maybe hill fits in better with walsh's plan of attack for the summer 2010 free agency period. do you need to draft a potential star wing who needs the ball if your plan is to sign a superstar wing who needs the ball?

my thing is u can't build a team around a player that u don't even have... the first priority for this team should be to get that superstar player to build around by any means necessary, whether that be via the draft, trade or free agency... sure, if all goes well & Lebron or Wade comes here next season, then taking Hill seems like the more logical move, but who knows if that's gonna happen or not? u cross those bridges when u get to them... u can't think about 2010 when drafting in 2009 IMO... always take the BPA & then figure things out from there unless the talent of the players available are so similar, then u draft based on need... IMO DeRozan has superstar upside... Hill not so much... i would've taken DeRozan & then figured out my options later if i had my choice... that's just me... but again, i'm not killing Walsh for taking Hill, i like him as a prospect too, just not so much as i liked DeRozan.

Posted by TMS:


my thing is u can't build a team around a player that u don't even have... the first priority for this team should be to get that superstar player to build around by any means necessary, whether that be via the draft, trade or free agency... sure, if all goes well & Lebron or Wade comes here next season, then taking Hill seems like the more logical move, but who knows if that's gonna happen or not? u cross those bridges when u get to them... u can't think about 2010 when drafting in 2009 IMO... always take the BPA & then figure things out from there unless the talent of the players available are so similar, then u draft based on need... IMO DeRozan has superstar upside... Hill not so much... i would've taken DeRozan & then figured out my options later if i had my choice... that's just me... but again, i'm not killing Walsh for taking Hill, i like him as a prospect too, just not so much as i liked DeRozan.

i don't think of DeRozan as a guy who helps you win games for some reason. i loved holiday, but it seemed he had some holes in his game and lacked a true position.

if hill pans out, he's a solid starting PF in this league who can put a body on the KGs and Dwight Howards and Amar'es of the league. if he pans out, he fills a MAJOR need we've had for a while. i'm willing to wait and see. i coveted stephen curry, once he was gone, i really didn't care who we took.

but i agree that building a team around the potential of lebron is dumb. but maybe they were drafting a guy they thought complimented wilson and gallo, with the uncertainty of dlee and nate still being around.

[Edited by - crzymdups on 10-09-2009 12:32 PM]

Posted by TMS:

Posted by crzymdups:

Posted by TMS:

Posted by crzymdups:

Posted by TMS:

Posted by JohnWallace44:

Posted by crzymdups:

hmm, i wonder why walsh didn't select evans.

Yeah, Walsh has said that Evans was the second best player in the draft, so can't knock him there

didn't Walsh say he would have taken Curry at #5 if he were able to trade up in this draft?

evans was taken #4 overall, so taking Curry 5 wouldn't have been so bad.


look, Hill is a bit of a project. but he has a decent ceiling - i think he'll wind up being a dale davis/joe smith type. he can play a little d, hit the boards and run. you need guys like that. it's not a sexy pick, but he's improved drastically every year and there's no reason to think that won't continue.

i never complained about taking Hill even tho i was screaming for us to take DeRozan for the past year & a half... i agree Hill's got a pretty good ceiling & could turn out to be a very good player for us... but i still say DeRozan has a higher upside & has the potential to be a superstar in this league that can carry a team, something i don't really see from Hill.

maybe hill fits in better with walsh's plan of attack for the summer 2010 free agency period. do you need to draft a potential star wing who needs the ball if your plan is to sign a superstar wing who needs the ball?

my thing is u can't build a team around a player that u don't even have... the first priority for this team should be to get that superstar player to build around by any means necessary, whether that be via the draft, trade or free agency... sure, if all goes well & Lebron or Wade comes here next season, then taking Hill seems like the more logical move, but who knows if that's gonna happen or not? u cross those bridges when u get to them... u can't think about 2010 when drafting in 2009 IMO... always take the BPA & then figure things out from there unless the talent of the players available are so similar, then u draft based on need... IMO DeRozan has superstar upside... Hill not so much... i would've taken DeRozan & then figured out my options later if i had my choice... that's just me... but again, i'm not killing Walsh for taking Hill, i like him as a prospect too, just not so much as i liked DeRozan.

that's it!! we have our team motto for '09-'10!

NY KNICKS - building a team around a player we don't even have

Posted by crzymdups:

Posted by nixluva:

How can you look down on 6-10, fast and athletic with shotblocking and a budding offensive game? The kid has all the earmarks of a good prospect. Like I keeps saying they had Curry on the mind and after him Hill, so they got what they felt they wanted in the draft. They had all the guards in for a look and in Waltoni's opinion they weren't quite what they wanted for this team at 8. It's always interesting to see what other picks do, but I don't feel that this early in basically meaningless action, we can really determine much about the future of these picks.

i basically agree with this. none of the other guards seemed to be a fit for this squad.

if we'd passed on stephen curry for hill, i would have thrown my TV into the river. but with curry and rubio off the board, there weren't any great fits for this team at guard.

the only other guard I thought would have been perfect for the Knicks was Jonny Flynn and he was off the board too. I likely would have went with Terrence Williams/Tyler Hansborough/Earl Clark/Austin Daye over Hill, but I'm not upset by his selection. I'm okay with giving him some time to turn into more

Posted by Marv:

don't forget a year ago at this time gallinari was being called the biggest bust in the history of the draft by some. now he's being touted as a savior.

you fickle f##ks

marv, he was a bust THEN, he's a savior NOW. geez. it's not rocket science.

Posted by orangeblobman:

Posted by JohnWallace44:

I just thought that being able to throw out wing players of

Duhon - Derozan - Chandler

or

Holiday - Chandler - Gallo

would have been a big step up from a size/defense/flexibility standpoint

Hill's not going to play, so we won't know the answer for a while.

Yo you're right on man, that line up looks so good. This is why i lobbied hard for Walsh to read this and pick Holiday, that kid can BALLLLL

Benefit of having Holiday as a PG if it worked out would also be that you could pair him with Nate and have less of a mismatch.

Who knows... maybe Walsh will be right in the end.

I certainly didn't get the Gallo pick. If he's really "the best shooter" that MikeD has ever seen, then maybe we've got something.

Unspoken, of course.

I would never even suggest that...

JW.. whats not to see? He's 6'10, can put the ball on the floor, can pass like a PG, can shoot from anywhere and showed he was a physical guy that would get to the line against grown men in the Euroleague. He's not the run and jump athlete that some guys are but when you see him crash the boards and run the floor its clear he's no euro-stiff.

If I could do that draft again I would take Lopez. Stick him and Lee together and your set up front for the next 10 years. After that I would stick with Gallo.

I was wrong about Lopez. He's simply a better pro than CBB player

Posted by Paladin55:

I would not have been upset if the Knicks had taken Holiday, but for the folks who think that pre-season games mean anything, Holiday, in two games, has 0 assists and 4 turnovers.


... and I still have doubts about Evans playing the point.

[Edited by - Paladin55 on 10-09-2009 1:33 PM]

Holiday is a bust.

TD is gonna make Blair look great like he did with M.Rose. But for us Blair is not a good fit. Derozen is interesting as he has the most potential in the draft out of anyone not named Griffin.