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

Deal is done Q was added
Author Thread
Knixkik
Posts: 35475
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #11
USA
7/1/2013  2:30 PM
Bonn1997 wrote:
Knixkik wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
Knixkik wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
MSG3 wrote:Q gets a 3 yr contract, 1 yr guaranteed to complete the deal.

Now Imagine if we took back 3 stiffs, gave one of them a 3 yr deal, added to our salary cap situation for an extra year and got a late 1st rd pick and 2 2nd round picks in return. Toronto got a good deal FOR THEM. We got a good deal FOR OUR SITUATION.


It's questionable whether an unhealthy, 7' volume scorer is even better than a 6'10", healthy, efficient scorer anyway. There's no way we should be giving up any picks in this deal.

So you expect Toronto to take back longer contracts, for worst players, without receiving anything of value?


No, they're getting the healthier and probably better player. Almost every advanced stat I see on Bargs indicates that he's a net negative for his team while Novak is a positive role player.

This is the problem with judging purely on advanced metrics. You can actually find evidence to support Novak being a better player than Bargnani and actually believe it not taking into account team, role, etc. But no one in their right mind who knows anything about basketball could actually suggest Novak is a better player. In the right role Bargnani is a significant upgrade no matter what stat you look at.


The problem is entirely ignoring the advanced metrics. I didn't say I judge the player entirely on them but when every advanced metric favors player A over B, that's enough for me to say we shouldn't throw in a bunch of draft picks to get player B.

Advanced metrics are good in some ways and bad in others. If advanced metrics go against your common sense, it is best to ignore them. Considering these 2 players have completely different roles, it is best to ignore most advanced metrics. And the draft picks traded can be bought back, seeing how they are low value picks. Higher picks though, i would agree with you.

AUTOADVERT
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
7/1/2013  2:33 PM
Knixkik wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
Knixkik wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
Knixkik wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
MSG3 wrote:Q gets a 3 yr contract, 1 yr guaranteed to complete the deal.

Now Imagine if we took back 3 stiffs, gave one of them a 3 yr deal, added to our salary cap situation for an extra year and got a late 1st rd pick and 2 2nd round picks in return. Toronto got a good deal FOR THEM. We got a good deal FOR OUR SITUATION.


It's questionable whether an unhealthy, 7' volume scorer is even better than a 6'10", healthy, efficient scorer anyway. There's no way we should be giving up any picks in this deal.

So you expect Toronto to take back longer contracts, for worst players, without receiving anything of value?


No, they're getting the healthier and probably better player. Almost every advanced stat I see on Bargs indicates that he's a net negative for his team while Novak is a positive role player.

This is the problem with judging purely on advanced metrics. You can actually find evidence to support Novak being a better player than Bargnani and actually believe it not taking into account team, role, etc. But no one in their right mind who knows anything about basketball could actually suggest Novak is a better player. In the right role Bargnani is a significant upgrade no matter what stat you look at.


The problem is entirely ignoring the advanced metrics. I didn't say I judge the player entirely on them but when every advanced metric favors player A over B, that's enough for me to say we shouldn't throw in a bunch of draft picks to get player B.

Advanced metrics are good in some ways and bad in others. If advanced metrics go against your common sense, it is best to ignore them. Considering these 2 players have completely different roles, it is best to ignore most advanced metrics. And the draft picks traded can be bought back, seeing how they are low value picks. Higher picks though, i would agree with you.


OK, the advanced metrics don't go against my common sense here. So I guess you're saying I shouldn't ignore them.
That's the problem with the "common sense" "eyeball" approach. Your eyes will see whatever you want them to see.
3G4G
Posts: 23485
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 9/3/2012
Member: #4333

7/1/2013  2:39 PM
Chris Sheridan is crucifying us on this deal with statistical findings grouped with Hahn(they're sourcing somewhere for the stats)


Maybe some of the same links posted in our conversations here.

Knixkik
Posts: 35475
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #11
USA
7/1/2013  2:49 PM
Bonn1997 wrote:
Knixkik wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
Knixkik wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
Knixkik wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
MSG3 wrote:Q gets a 3 yr contract, 1 yr guaranteed to complete the deal.

Now Imagine if we took back 3 stiffs, gave one of them a 3 yr deal, added to our salary cap situation for an extra year and got a late 1st rd pick and 2 2nd round picks in return. Toronto got a good deal FOR THEM. We got a good deal FOR OUR SITUATION.


It's questionable whether an unhealthy, 7' volume scorer is even better than a 6'10", healthy, efficient scorer anyway. There's no way we should be giving up any picks in this deal.

So you expect Toronto to take back longer contracts, for worst players, without receiving anything of value?


No, they're getting the healthier and probably better player. Almost every advanced stat I see on Bargs indicates that he's a net negative for his team while Novak is a positive role player.

This is the problem with judging purely on advanced metrics. You can actually find evidence to support Novak being a better player than Bargnani and actually believe it not taking into account team, role, etc. But no one in their right mind who knows anything about basketball could actually suggest Novak is a better player. In the right role Bargnani is a significant upgrade no matter what stat you look at.


The problem is entirely ignoring the advanced metrics. I didn't say I judge the player entirely on them but when every advanced metric favors player A over B, that's enough for me to say we shouldn't throw in a bunch of draft picks to get player B.

Advanced metrics are good in some ways and bad in others. If advanced metrics go against your common sense, it is best to ignore them. Considering these 2 players have completely different roles, it is best to ignore most advanced metrics. And the draft picks traded can be bought back, seeing how they are low value picks. Higher picks though, i would agree with you.


OK, the advanced metrics don't go against my common sense here. So I guess you're saying I shouldn't ignore them.
That's the problem with the "common sense" "eyeball" approach. Your eyes will see whatever you want them to see.

My eyes are comparing a player who averaged 20 ppg twice to a player who is one of the best shooters in the league, but has only recently done enough to earn a single long-term NBA contract. Novak simply cannot perform like Bargnani when he's healthy. Bargnani is not a first option, and didn't want to be in Toronto, but can be different in a different role and team. And saying he's not worth a late first round pick is overvaluing a late first round pick where you have less than 45% chance of finding a rotation player.

Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
7/1/2013  2:57 PM
Knixkik wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
Knixkik wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
Knixkik wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
Knixkik wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
MSG3 wrote:Q gets a 3 yr contract, 1 yr guaranteed to complete the deal.

Now Imagine if we took back 3 stiffs, gave one of them a 3 yr deal, added to our salary cap situation for an extra year and got a late 1st rd pick and 2 2nd round picks in return. Toronto got a good deal FOR THEM. We got a good deal FOR OUR SITUATION.


It's questionable whether an unhealthy, 7' volume scorer is even better than a 6'10", healthy, efficient scorer anyway. There's no way we should be giving up any picks in this deal.

So you expect Toronto to take back longer contracts, for worst players, without receiving anything of value?


No, they're getting the healthier and probably better player. Almost every advanced stat I see on Bargs indicates that he's a net negative for his team while Novak is a positive role player.

This is the problem with judging purely on advanced metrics. You can actually find evidence to support Novak being a better player than Bargnani and actually believe it not taking into account team, role, etc. But no one in their right mind who knows anything about basketball could actually suggest Novak is a better player. In the right role Bargnani is a significant upgrade no matter what stat you look at.


The problem is entirely ignoring the advanced metrics. I didn't say I judge the player entirely on them but when every advanced metric favors player A over B, that's enough for me to say we shouldn't throw in a bunch of draft picks to get player B.

Advanced metrics are good in some ways and bad in others. If advanced metrics go against your common sense, it is best to ignore them. Considering these 2 players have completely different roles, it is best to ignore most advanced metrics. And the draft picks traded can be bought back, seeing how they are low value picks. Higher picks though, i would agree with you.


OK, the advanced metrics don't go against my common sense here. So I guess you're saying I shouldn't ignore them.
That's the problem with the "common sense" "eyeball" approach. Your eyes will see whatever you want them to see.

My eyes are comparing a player who averaged 20 ppg twice to a player who is one of the best shooters in the league, but has only recently done enough to earn a single long-term NBA contract. Novak simply cannot perform like Bargnani when he's healthy. Bargnani is not a first option, and didn't want to be in Toronto, but can be different in a different role and team. And saying he's not worth a late first round pick is overvaluing a late first round pick where you have less than 45% chance of finding a rotation player.


Well I hope you're right. Barg's shot creation ability is far greater than Novak's. The stat community tends not to give much weight to that but it's not yet a settled issue. Maybe his shot creation will help more than I'm expecting. We can at least hope that's the case.
Knixkik
Posts: 35475
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #11
USA
7/1/2013  3:17 PM
Bonn1997 wrote:
Knixkik wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
Knixkik wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
Knixkik wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
Knixkik wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
MSG3 wrote:Q gets a 3 yr contract, 1 yr guaranteed to complete the deal.

Now Imagine if we took back 3 stiffs, gave one of them a 3 yr deal, added to our salary cap situation for an extra year and got a late 1st rd pick and 2 2nd round picks in return. Toronto got a good deal FOR THEM. We got a good deal FOR OUR SITUATION.


It's questionable whether an unhealthy, 7' volume scorer is even better than a 6'10", healthy, efficient scorer anyway. There's no way we should be giving up any picks in this deal.

So you expect Toronto to take back longer contracts, for worst players, without receiving anything of value?


No, they're getting the healthier and probably better player. Almost every advanced stat I see on Bargs indicates that he's a net negative for his team while Novak is a positive role player.

This is the problem with judging purely on advanced metrics. You can actually find evidence to support Novak being a better player than Bargnani and actually believe it not taking into account team, role, etc. But no one in their right mind who knows anything about basketball could actually suggest Novak is a better player. In the right role Bargnani is a significant upgrade no matter what stat you look at.


The problem is entirely ignoring the advanced metrics. I didn't say I judge the player entirely on them but when every advanced metric favors player A over B, that's enough for me to say we shouldn't throw in a bunch of draft picks to get player B.

Advanced metrics are good in some ways and bad in others. If advanced metrics go against your common sense, it is best to ignore them. Considering these 2 players have completely different roles, it is best to ignore most advanced metrics. And the draft picks traded can be bought back, seeing how they are low value picks. Higher picks though, i would agree with you.


OK, the advanced metrics don't go against my common sense here. So I guess you're saying I shouldn't ignore them.
That's the problem with the "common sense" "eyeball" approach. Your eyes will see whatever you want them to see.

My eyes are comparing a player who averaged 20 ppg twice to a player who is one of the best shooters in the league, but has only recently done enough to earn a single long-term NBA contract. Novak simply cannot perform like Bargnani when he's healthy. Bargnani is not a first option, and didn't want to be in Toronto, but can be different in a different role and team. And saying he's not worth a late first round pick is overvaluing a late first round pick where you have less than 45% chance of finding a rotation player.


Well I hope you're right. Barg's shot creation ability is far greater than Novak's. The stat community tends not to give much weight to that but it's not yet a settled issue. Maybe his shot creation will help more than I'm expecting. We can at least hope that's the case.

It really just comes down to his health and motivation level. If healthy and motivated, we just received our second scorer to compliment Melo perfectly. If not, we got a low-efficiency player who is on the books the next 2 seasons.

GustavBahler
Posts: 42864
Alba Posts: 15
Joined: 7/12/2010
Member: #3186

7/1/2013  4:37 PM
Great news. Starting to really like this trade lol.
Markji
Posts: 22753
Alba Posts: -4
Joined: 9/14/2007
Member: #1673
USA
7/1/2013  5:26 PM    LAST EDITED: 7/1/2013  5:29 PM
Here's a Ball Don't Lie take on the trade. And I think this is why a lot of us are unhappy with the trade and how much we had to give up. Even tho the picks are late round picks.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/york-knicks-trading-andrea-bargnani-because-course-155517381.html

While former Raptors personnel boss Bryan Colangelo was inexorably tied to Bargnani after not only drafting him first overall in 2006 but also giving him a (head-scratching, even at the time) five-year, $50 million extension in the summer of 2009, a new Raps regime led by recently hired former Denver Nuggets general manager and reigning NBA Executive of the Year Masai Ujiri had no such sentimental attachment; after taking the Raptors' reins on June 1, Ujiri reportedly made moving Bargnani his "first order of business."

There was quite a bit of skepticism as to whether he'd actually be able to complete that business, though, for several reasons:

• Bargnani has two years and nearly $22.3 million remaining on his current contract;

Everyone knew the Raptors were desperate to move him, not only because Ujiri (and Colangelo before him) had openly said so, but also because it seemed untenable to bring Bargnani back to a city where he'd begun hearing more boos than cheers and where player, team and fan-base all appeared ready to move on months before he suffered a right elbow injury that ended his 2012-13 season;

• And, most importantly, Bargnani hasn't really been very, or any, good for the past couple of seasons.

He has always been a very poor defender, with insufficient strength to battle bruising power forwards and centers in the post and too little foot speed to stay with speedier threes and fours on the perimeter. He's also been something of a space cadet as a helper in Toronto's team defensive schemes; the Raptors have allowed more points per possession with Bargnani on the floor than off it in each of the last six seasons, according to NBA.com's stat tool. (On/off-court data isn't available for Bargnani's rookie season.)

He grabs an astoundingly low share of available rebounds for a 7-footer, a persistent problem that reached its nadir last season, when he posted a lower rebound rate (7.6 percent of possible caroms) than the average small forward/shooting guard and the lowest of any power forward to play at least 10 games and average at least 10 minutes per game. He's not an especially gifted facilitator, averaging 1.5 assists per 36 minutes over the course of his seven-year career; this is extra bad when you consider that he averages two turnovers per-36.

These faults — the defensive liability, the absent rebounding, the underwhelming playmaking — are generally accepted truths about Bargnani's game through a 444-game NBA sample, and unlikely to meaningfully improve at the age of 27. To whatever extent he has made up for those flaws throughout his career, it's been as a result of a deep shooting stroke that can draw opposing big men out of the paint; he shot 37.6 percent from 3-point range through his first four NBA seasons, exploding just often enough to keep alive the hope that he'd figure out how to become a consistent and reliable offensive focal point.
As he took on more responsibility and took more shots in the Raptors' offense over the last three seasons, though, his accuracy and efficiency dwindled. He shot a tick under 40 percent from the floor and 31 percent from deep last season, due in part to a pair of injuries to his shooting elbow and partly, perhaps, to a seeming disinterest in getting in shape.

With that long-range stroke and scoring acumen falling by the wayside, there really wasn't too much left to Bargnani — if he couldn't carry his share of the offensive load, he was just an overpaid, underperforming albatross with no place in a Toronto future that will be built on frontcourts featuring Rudy Gay, Amir Johnson and Jonas Valanciunas. He was an afterthought whom most observers figured would net zero actual value in trade, and who was considered among the league's most likely candidates to be jettisoned via the CBA's amnesty provision.

So, y'know, enter the Knicks.

You can certainly make the argument (as some have) that the Knicks didn't lose a ton of on-court value in the deal, considering age and injury limited the 39-year-old Camby to just 253 minutes in his return season to New York and that Novak — while a more accurate and less expensive 3-point shooter than Bargnani — completely fell out of coach Mike Woodson's rotation in the postseason. You can make the argument (as some have) that a fresh start in a new city with a new role could be just what the doctor ordered for Bargnani, that working with shooting coach Dave Hopla could help Bargnani rediscover his rhythm and that a long spring, summer and fall to get healthy could do wonders for the former top overall pick.

These are possibilities; Bargnani does still have talent, after all. Still, it's difficult to see how adding Bargnani to the mix meaningfully moves the needle in a positive direction for the Knicks.

While the Knicks were repeatedly victimized by the size and interior strength of the Indiana Pacers in their six-game second-round playoff loss, Bargnani doesn't offer much in the way of rim protection, low-post muscle or in-the-paint grit; he also doesn't figure to improve what was a middling defense in terms of points allowed per possession last season. Given how successful the Knicks were last season with Carmelo Anthony at the power forward spot, it seems like the prudent move would be to bring Bargnani off the bench to provide an offensive boost; then again, the Knicks still employ Amar'e Stoudemire, and while you can kind of get on board with the idea of Amar'e operating out of the post while Andrea spaces the floor, the idea of defensive units pairing Stoudemire and Bargnani is likely already giving Knicks fans nightmares.

Plus, while Bargnani profiles as a stretch four in today's NBA, meaning his addition would seem to jive (to some degree) with the small-ball identity the Knicks fashioned last year, if the addition of another power forward winds up pushing Anthony down to small forward more often, that would seem to run counter to the Melo-at-the-four plus one big and three shooters/playmakers strategy. So while the Knicks might not have given up much on-court value in the swap, they might not have added much, either.

And then, of course, you think about the future.

The 2016 first-round pick the Knicks will give up for Bargnani had already been included in a prior trade with Ujiri, as Denver received the right to swap '16 first-rounders with New York in the deal that brought Anthony to Manhattan. The Knicks gave up their 2014 first-rounder in that deal, too, and sent off next year's second-round pick, as part of the 2012 deal that sent Toney Douglas, Josh Harrellson and Jerome Jordan to the Houston Rockets for Marcus Camby.

The two second-rounders the Knicks will reportedly send Toronto include a '14 selection they received from the Oklahoma City Thunder for Ronnie Brewer at this past February's trade deadline; the Knicks own the rights to one more '14 second-rounder, which once belonged to the Sacramento Kings but went to the Boston Celtics in 2009, then was conveyed to New York as part of the Nate Robinson deal in 2010, but New York only gets that pick if it falls between picks No. 56 and 60, which means they're not likely to see it. That means the Knicks will most likely be without a draft choice in what some have projected to be the deepest draft in years. The Knicks have also given up their second-rounders in '15 (in the Houston deal) and '16 (in the trade that brought Raymond Felton back from the Portland Trail Blazers). New York's 2017 second-rounder will go to the Raptors, for Bargnani, too.

It's true that draft picks don't always fulfill their promise; you absolutely don't have to remind Knicks fans of that. But teams that are over the salary cap and luxury tax — the Knicks are on the books for more than $77 million this year and next before this deal goes through — have precious few instruments under the new collective bargaining agreement for adding talent, let alone young, inexpensive, cost-controlled talent. The draft affords that opportunity, whether by making your own selections or by using a cache of available selections to pluck a young asset like Thomas Robinson, whom the Blazers just snagged from the Rockets for a pair of second-rounders and European prospects.

Having draft picks gives you options; not having them eliminates options. The Knicks, now, have very few options at inexpensively improving their existing core in the years ahead or developing foundational talent to have on-board beyond the 2014-15 season, when just about everybody comes off New York's books and a grand reset seems likely, and in the three years afterward, too. They have traded away said options in the hope that a high-priced player with a recognizable name who'd become persona non grata in his previous stop will be able to turn his declining fortunes around under the bright lights of Madison Square Garden.

Knicks fans have heard this tune before. It's got a bad beat, and you can't dance to it. But that doesn't mean James Dolan and company plan to stop playing that same old song over and over and over again.

The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense. Tom Clancy - author
loweyecue
Posts: 27468
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 11/20/2005
Member: #1037

7/1/2013  7:33 PM
Bonn1997 wrote:
Knixkik wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
Knixkik wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
MSG3 wrote:Q gets a 3 yr contract, 1 yr guaranteed to complete the deal.

Now Imagine if we took back 3 stiffs, gave one of them a 3 yr deal, added to our salary cap situation for an extra year and got a late 1st rd pick and 2 2nd round picks in return. Toronto got a good deal FOR THEM. We got a good deal FOR OUR SITUATION.


It's questionable whether an unhealthy, 7' volume scorer is even better than a 6'10", healthy, efficient scorer anyway. There's no way we should be giving up any picks in this deal.

So you expect Toronto to take back longer contracts, for worst players, without receiving anything of value?


No, they're getting the healthier and probably better player. Almost every advanced stat I see on Bargs indicates that he's a net negative for his team while Novak is a positive role player.

This is the problem with judging purely on advanced metrics. You can actually find evidence to support Novak being a better player than Bargnani and actually believe it not taking into account team, role, etc. But no one in their right mind who knows anything about basketball could actually suggest Novak is a better player. In the right role Bargnani is a significant upgrade no matter what stat you look at.


The problem is entirely ignoring the advanced metrics. I didn't say I judge the player entirely on them but when every advanced metric favors player A over B, that's enough for me to say we shouldn't throw in a bunch of draft picks to get player B.

No matter how many times you point it out people will intentionally minconstrue your words and suggest that you think Novak is athe better player hean Bargs - because they really have no valid data driven counter argument. At the end of the day we just went and got ourselves yet another one dimensional chucker, who cant rebound or pass. If K-Mart leaves and Tyson is traded we are completely fudged.

TKF on Melo ::....he is a punk, a jerk, a self absorbed out of shape, self aggrandizing, unprofessional, volume chucking coach killing playoff loser!!
Deal is done Q was added

©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