playa2 wrote:So why did we take gallanari that high when walsh didn't even see him play in person ? Did mike relationship with gallanari's father play any part in the decision...just keeping it real.I see mike dantoni's name written all over that pick too.
Why revisit the Gallinari pick when he is developing into a very good player? He is not the problem, and lets face it, the Knicks might very well have taken a Mayo or Westbrook last year if they had been available, and if the rumors were true, we did try to make a deal with Memphis to get an extra pick. I thought we might have taken Augustine, but obviously they did not like him enough to pick him that high. The two guys a lot of folks like- Gordon and Lopez were not PGs, and although you can obviously make strong cases for them being better choices at #6 than Gallo, the jury is not out on which of those these three will eventually be the best player among them.
The Kevin Wilson report on Gallo was actually very accurate, except for the fact that he a much better defender than I, and almost everyone else, thought he was. Still a few mistakes now and then, but look at the Cleveland game, and watch how he moves around, especially how he keeps his man from getting the ball in good position.
By the way, don't underestimate Jame's little head to head with Gallo after the game. If Gallinari was just a bomber, it never would have happened. He saw Gallinari do a lot of things yesterday, was impressed, and pulling him over was recognition of this fact.
Don't know why Hill was higher on their board than certain other players, especially since they seemed to know early on that he was a "raw" talent. I think their decision not to take Jennings had to do with his size and the character issues (whether or not they were legit) that were floating around. Walsh recently said he made to trip to Europe to see Jennings and others, but Jennings was not at the scheduled event. My own belief is that any PG we took had to get MDA's approval, and if he did not like any of them, they would look at another position. I was not a Hill fan-my only interest in him was the rumor that GS might want him, and that we would have a better chance of getting Curry.
You are right about PG. This system really does need a PG with court vision, the ability to take it to the basket on a more consistent basis, and someone who can hit a variety of shots, not just the bombs that Duhon likes to take. Duhon is a capable backup, he is not starter material. Douglas was the best PG at the time the Knicks picked 29th, and they liked him a lot, but yeah, the Knicks could have taken Jennings or even Lawson at 8, and still gotten a capable big man later on. Don't know if Douglas can become a starter, but he plays hard and has a place in this league.
I don't think you can count out Hill potential to become a very productive player for us in the future. We will know a lot about his work ethic if he comes back next season without having added some muscle to his upper and lower body. Douglas, a workout freak, has to try to get into his head about working out (would not mind Gallo doing some workouts with Douglas, also). We also needed a center, and Walsh thinks Hill can be the kind of athletic center with a midrange shot that the team needs.
As for Chandler- thinking that he would be affected by MDA calling Gallo a great shooter is like a power hitter being upset because his manager calls their young shortstop the best base stealer he has ever seen. Talks of trading Chandler to Washington might have been more upsetting to Chandler, but why be upset about Gallo getting some praise for something that Chandler knows he is good at? What the Mets manager did with Daniel Murphy and Ryan Church before the recent baseball season was more damaging to a player, since they play similar positions. The MDA comment was apples and oranges.
No man is happy without a delusion of some kind. Delusions are as necessary to our happiness as realities- C.N. Bovee
