FA and drafts.

NO ONE
I say NO ONE in NBA league, David Sterns, Announcers and nba writers Want to ever see Knicks get GOOD in NY City
other than us true blue Knick fans.

You got Carmelo 'sourpuss' Anthony now saying publicly LBJ is not going to NY.

Haters all the NBA haters. ALL this crap is partially J.Dolan fault.
Anyhow maybe Briggs is right we dont need no help if we DRAFT, save cap space. Get players or talent from the area
and get folks whom wanna come to NewYork.

I cant stress that. Whole NBA seems afraid to come to big bad Big Apple NYC
Don't know why unless rest of NBA wants Celts, Lakers to kick their tails for years to come while they hang more
trophies

TMS wrote:

nixluva wrote:I don't really see how the draft route would've helped us much. We didn't have a 1st rounder and Hill in DW's opinion was worth more to him as a way to clear enough cap for two max FA's. I don't think he or MDA felt that they wanted to wait for Hill to develop. It may not be the case that they felt he'd NEVER develop, but they just didn't want to wait. What if it took 2 more years for him to get to his full potential? Meanwhile using him in a trade to replace him with say, BOSH, makes a ton of sense!!! You can't just look at the decision in reference to "if we don't" get a FA. There are so many FA's available that we know we're gonna get someone at this point and it just might be the top guys on our list, but even if not, there are a ton of acceptable options outside of that. The draft pick we gave up in the form of Hill is unfortunate, but at this point it's what it is and we have the space to go after 2 TOP TIER players that we didn't have before. I don't regret that at all.

how do you think the draft route wouldn't have helped us much when traditionally teams that have won championships in the past have all used the draft as a major component towards building their teams? so wait, 2 potential lottery picks in the next 3 years couldn't have helped? the Knicks weren't willing to wait for Jordan Hill to develop, but they were willing to wait for Gallo to develop? how does that work? when we took Gallo they were propping him up as a project with a ton of potential, which he was... now he's starting to blossom... why didn't the Knicks have the same kind of patience with Hill? because when we picked Jordan Hill i coulda sworn i heard Donnie & MDA talking glowingly about his potential too... seems to me the Rockets thought highly enough of Hill to demand he be included in that deal to take on Fishlips' contract... apparently they think that amassing young talent & draft picks gives them an edge when it comes to future trades... i happen to agree with that line of thinking... that's exactly how the Boston Celtics were able to build their championship team a couple years ago.

trading Hill to replace with Bosh does make a ton of sense, but that didn't happen here... we traded Hill to dump Fishlips' $7 million dollar salary... we have no guarantees who we're going to sign this summer... if things work out & we're able to sign Lebron & Bosh then the plan worked out perfectly... if we get rejected by all the top names in free agency then the plan was an abject failure... i don't get how people can call things a success before we even know the outcome.

Agree 100% and then some more.

It comes with a steep cost, though. Hill has barely played this season, but was promising enough for the Knicks to spend a top-10 pick on him just a few months ago. The Knicks will also send their 2012 first-round pick to Houston -- there's no word on lottery protection just yet -- and has granted Houston the opportunity to swap its own 2011 pick with that of the Knicks. Unless the '11 or '12 picks are protected, it appears New York has no chance at a lottery pick until 2013 at the earliest. The team's 2010 pick belongs to Utah.

Building through the draft doesn't appear to be an option anymore unless

a) we get ridiculously Rajon Rondo, Gilbert Arenas, Tony Parker, Manu lucky with a late pick

b) we trade for a top 5 picks..fat chance..and get a stud

nixluva wrote:
2008-09 Lakers - Kobe, Gasol, Odom
2007-08 Celtics - KG, Pierce, Allen
2006-07 Spurs - Duncan, Parker, Ginobilli
2005-06 Heat - Wade, Shaq
2004-05 Spurs - Duncan, Parker, Ginobilli
2003-04 Pistons - Billups, Prince, Hamilton, Rasheed, Wallace
2002-03 Spurs - Duncan, Parker, Ginobilli
2001-02 Lakers - Kobe, Shaq
2000-01 Lakers - Kobe, Shaq
1999-00 Lakers - Kobe, Shaq

We have to go with the odds and get 2 elite players in here. I just don't see us doing that thru the draft. More than that it could take many more years to make that happen and DW is trying to speed up the process by maybe getting those players this summer.

The Lakers won 53 games the year before they got Bryant, and the Spurs had won 59 games the year before Robinson was injured.

So you can hardly say that the team-building success of the Lakers or the Spurs is a model for franchise success. Without Robinson's injury and Kobe's desire the play on a team of his choosing, the basketball world of the past 10 years might be quite different.

In a draft with 5 players to choose from in the fist 5 you can get the best player even if its no the top pick.

Nets had the best chance I think with 25% but its no lock because you got a 75% of not getting it. 50-50 on first two.

Franchise players need luck. Boston was in line for Duncan with best odds.

Got that Oka4 vs Dwight Howard thing to deal with .

I think Briggs is right in the traditional sense but the jury is out on this model.

Lebron is still a long shot and I won't call it our failure until that opening day roster is set.

nixluva wrote:The draft is a primary means for a lucky few to get an All Time Great, which you need to win a title. In the last ten years it's only been teams with Duncan, Shaquille n Kobe winning the bulk of the titles and then you've got Wade, KG, Pierce, Allen, Billups fillin in the rest. That's not a lot of guys and only a small group were drafted by the team they led to the Title.

This path isn't risky IMO cuz the chances of drafting an Elite Title worthy player are slim. Even with our picks there wasn't any guarantee we'd get lucky and land one of those players. Draft is only a chance not a guarantee. The draft position being determined by lottery takes away the guarantee of getting the spot a losing team expects. I'm not anti draft I just think it's overrated for most of the teams in the draft when it comes to landing Elite level players. At least in this scenario we can fight on level ground for a chance to get those Elite players rather than hoping on ping pong balls.

I agree. The sucky part about the draft is you have to be absolutely atrocious. Then ontop of it, you have to get lucky with the ping pong balls. Even then, you have no guarantees when you draft a player; get a high pick in the wrong year and you don't even get an all-star. I really don't like how things are set up in the NBA. The system gives very good teams ways to improve, terrible teams ways to improve, but if you're simply mediocre, you're stuck in no mans land with 5-10 years of mediocrity before you can recover, if you're lucky.

Knowing that, I have no problem with the Knicks exploiting the system, by freeing up so much salary room, so that there's a solid chance of getting to that upper level.

nixluva wrote:Yeah the Lakers and Spurs kinda hurt the argument a bit.

Spurs got Tony Parker & Manu G through the draft late in the 1st & 2nd rounds... draft picks are hugely important if you make good use of them.

Solace wrote:

TMS wrote:the notion that u have to be absolutely horrible to build through the draft is a crock & has been proven year after year... there is star talent that can be had anywhere in the 1st & sometimes the 2nd round every year... the teams that do the best job of researching & scouting talent & also BUILDING UP that talent after they're drafted are able to utilize the draft most effectively... the teams that waste their draft picks year after year & fail to develop their talent don't

How many teams have won the title by drafting a player when they weren't one of the 5 or 6 worst teams in the league? The main exception that comes to mind off the top of my head is Kobe Bryant, but I don't think letting a player like him slip to 13 is something that will happen again; at the time it was taboo to draft a player right out of high school with a high pick, but not anymore.

I 100% agree that you can get good players. But is your goal good players or championships?

wait a second, ur telling me that Tony Parker & Manu G didn't play integral roles in helping the Spurs win their championships?

Solace wrote:

TMS wrote:

Solace wrote:

TMS wrote:the notion that u have to be absolutely horrible to build through the draft is a crock & has been proven year after year... there is star talent that can be had anywhere in the 1st & sometimes the 2nd round every year... the teams that do the best job of researching & scouting talent & also BUILDING UP that talent after they're drafted are able to utilize the draft most effectively... the teams that waste their draft picks year after year & fail to develop their talent don't

How many teams have won the title by drafting a player when they weren't one of the 5 or 6 worst teams in the league? The main exception that comes to mind off the top of my head is Kobe Bryant, but I don't think letting a player like him slip to 13 is something that will happen again; at the time it was taboo to draft a player right out of high school with a high pick, but not anymore.

I 100% agree that you can get good players. But is your goal good players or championships?

wait a second, ur telling me that Tony Parker & Manu G didn't play integral roles in helping the Spurs win their championships?

No, you're misreading me. I'm saying that the teams that won titles did it because of a franchise player and this is almost a constant throughout NBA championship history. If you don't have that franchise player, your championship chances drop almost to 0%. By all means, if we had Tim Duncan, I think you can totally build around them through the draft. But, let's face facts... no Tim Duncan, and the Spurs have no championships.

Relating this to the Knicks, what I'm saying is that the draft is only a viable strategy if you have that franchise player or if you're absolutely horrific. If you're neither, you're likely to stay in mediocrity. Since that was our situation, freeing up the cap room was really the only logical move.

i agree it's unlikely to nab yourself a franchise guy unless you land a top lottery pick, but my argument is that the draft is important every year... u can't just dismiss the draft just because your team isn't sh!tty enough to get a top 5 pick every year & give your picks away unless you're landing some significant talent in return... we gave away a #8 pick & 2 future 1st rounders on a huge gamble... it would be 1 thing if we'd traded those assets for a tangible Allstar player like Bosh or someone else, at least then u can justify the reasoning behind it all... but we gave those assets away just to clear some cap space on a hope & a prayer that we'll be able to land a max FA this summer using that cap space... unless you snag the big prize this summer then how do you justify the move?

Solace wrote:

TMS wrote:

Solace wrote:

TMS wrote:the notion that u have to be absolutely horrible to build through the draft is a crock & has been proven year after year... there is star talent that can be had anywhere in the 1st & sometimes the 2nd round every year... the teams that do the best job of researching & scouting talent & also BUILDING UP that talent after they're drafted are able to utilize the draft most effectively... the teams that waste their draft picks year after year & fail to develop their talent don't

How many teams have won the title by drafting a player when they weren't one of the 5 or 6 worst teams in the league? The main exception that comes to mind off the top of my head is Kobe Bryant, but I don't think letting a player like him slip to 13 is something that will happen again; at the time it was taboo to draft a player right out of high school with a high pick, but not anymore.

I 100% agree that you can get good players. But is your goal good players or championships?

wait a second, ur telling me that Tony Parker & Manu G didn't play integral roles in helping the Spurs win their championships?

No, you're misreading me. I'm saying that the teams that won titles did it because of a franchise player and this is almost a constant throughout NBA championship history. If you don't have that franchise player, your championship chances drop almost to 0%. By all means, if we had Tim Duncan, I think you can totally build around them through the draft. But, let's face facts... no Tim Duncan, and the Spurs have no championships.

Relating this to the Knicks, what I'm saying is that the draft is only a viable strategy if you have that franchise player or if you're absolutely horrific. If you're neither, you're likely to stay in mediocrity. Since that was our situation, freeing up the cap room was really the only logical move.

kicks did have a few years of horrific. just happened the picks were traded. draft is always viable as long as you have picks. you have to make the best of the picks you do have. assuming you wont/cant get anyone is not wise in my view (you didnt say this). the draft offers you the most control over who you add to your team. fa's dont wanna sign, your are out of that route. draft picks can stick it to you rubio/sabonis style as well.