I do like Melo but he really needs a strong supporting cast around him and I am not really into forced ISO play so much (at a low % anway) - I mean I'll take Stephen Curry all day and his ISO as his % is up there.

Gallo needs a star next to him but I just love guys who look like they know how to play the game mentally, with a high IQ, more than guys who are more just scorers. The trade is what it is as are injuries, so it seems to be a wash thus far.

All these bad memories in every which way regarding this franchise really make me worry about our pick this year. If we keep him he will be a bust and if we trade him he will be a star - type of worry.

Knixkik wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Knixkik wrote:Comparing an injury prone role player to an all-star/recent scoring champ is a bad comparison.

perhaps you need to revisit the term "value" and really try to figure out what it means to you.

Better player: Anthony, no argument there. More valuable, Anthony, because he is much more valuable to his team than Gallinari is. I understand he is an analytics sweet heart, but Gallinari is not going to command a max contract next go-around, no question there. If multiple teams are willing to offer him a max contract as they were Melo, then i'm wrong. But this conversation is pointless, we know where you stand...

perhaps you can delineate in what way melo is more valuable to the knicks because i don't see it. also, as i have explained very clearly: "what the market will bear" has no bearing on a player's true value. you apparently disagree but you should try to explain why.

No point in explaining, you won't agree. There's nothing i can tell you that everyone else doesn't every day you argue with them about Melo.

well all you have to say is "i believe that value is based upon what the market will bear."

can you say that?

Knixkik wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Knixkik wrote:Comparing an injury prone role player to an all-star/recent scoring champ is a bad comparison.

perhaps you need to revisit the term "value" and really try to figure out what it means to you.

Better player: Anthony, no argument there. More valuable, Anthony, because he is much more valuable to his team than Gallinari is. I understand he is an analytics sweet heart, but Gallinari is not going to command a max contract next go-around, no question there. If multiple teams are willing to offer him a max contract as they were Melo, then i'm wrong. But this conversation is pointless, we know where you stand...

perhaps you can delineate in what way melo is more valuable to the knicks because i don't see it. also, as i have explained very clearly: "what the market will bear" has no bearing on a player's true value. you apparently disagree but you should try to explain why.

No point in explaining, you won't agree. There's nothing i can tell you that everyone else doesn't every day you argue with them about Melo.

well all you have to say is "i believe that value is based upon what the market will bear."

can you say that?

When comparing 2 players of this degree, all it takes is common sense. But there will always be some fancy metrics that show Gallinari is better, which is fine. Numbers can tell you whatever you want them to if you are creative.

i am sorry but you sound evasive. i asked a very simple question. never mind about advanced numbers... do you equate "value" with "what the market will bear?

a player's value = what the market will bear

do you agree with this equation?

He was emerging as one of the better defenders in the league, and there are not many 6'10"+ players with his ability to face up and drive to the basket. He was a foundation player on that team. I've always found it strange that when folks on UK look at that Denver team in the playoffs, and chuckle at the fact didn't get past the first round, they conveniently forget that one of their best all-around players was not on the court, and a couple of their other guys were banged up, if I remember correctly.

Never developed the standard post-up moves which would have helped him in certain match-ups, and I'm not sure his midrange game is as good as it could be, but he was emerging as classic glue guy with the ability to take over games on occasion. I'm pretty sure he even played at the 5 in a game or two last year, but I'm not positive of this.

Denver's new coach will have to decide whether Gallinari should be given more responsibility on the offensive end. He's a good passer- I don't see any reason why he can't average 4+APG in the right system. I expect that he would be willing to take on a greater burden as far as scoring, but he's always been willing to play within a system and not be a selfish player. I thought he looked a little heavier and slower last year, for what its worth- not sure how that will change things when a new coach comes in.

I think he would be a perfect fit for the Knicks, to be honest. He and Anthony could flip/flop at the 3/4 positions based on matchups. His passing and ability to get to the basket would be utilized. As mentioned above, his midrange shooting was always spotty, IMO, so that could be an issue, but he can do a lot of things well, and his defensive presence alone would be a nice thing to have.

dk7th wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Knixkik wrote:Comparing an injury prone role player to an all-star/recent scoring champ is a bad comparison.

perhaps you need to revisit the term "value" and really try to figure out what it means to you.

Better player: Anthony, no argument there. More valuable, Anthony, because he is much more valuable to his team than Gallinari is. I understand he is an analytics sweet heart, but Gallinari is not going to command a max contract next go-around, no question there. If multiple teams are willing to offer him a max contract as they were Melo, then i'm wrong. But this conversation is pointless, we know where you stand...

perhaps you can delineate in what way melo is more valuable to the knicks because i don't see it. also, as i have explained very clearly: "what the market will bear" has no bearing on a player's true value. you apparently disagree but you should try to explain why.

No point in explaining, you won't agree. There's nothing i can tell you that everyone else doesn't every day you argue with them about Melo.

well all you have to say is "i believe that value is based upon what the market will bear."

can you say that?

When comparing 2 players of this degree, all it takes is common sense. But there will always be some fancy metrics that show Gallinari is better, which is fine. Numbers can tell you whatever you want them to if you are creative.

i am sorry but you sound evasive. i asked a very simple question. never mind about advanced numbers... do you equate "value" with "what the market will bear?

a player's value = what the market will bear

do you agree with this equation?

The only reason Gallo's metrics looks good is because he doesnt handle the ball. So with no usage he looks like a great metrics guy. He's OK. He's incredibly one dimensional. He's a willing defender but not a great one. He's a poor rebounder. Not much of a handle. He never passes or makes plays for anyone. He shoots the thee. Thats it. Time to move on.

holfresh wrote:Trevor Ariza has had a better career than Gallo..He shoots at the same clip(40%) as Gallo, threes included(35%)..Ariza has better assist numbers...And let's not discuss defense...Metrics has to be amazing to put rose colored glasses on Gallo's numbers...

The better comparison for Gallo would be Ariza...

Ariza is a key piece to a conference finals team and is a good two way player.

I think Gallinari is more comparable to Mardy Collins and Landry Fields.

JrZyHuStLa wrote:

holfresh wrote:Trevor Ariza has had a better career than Gallo..He shoots at the same clip(40%) as Gallo, threes included(35%)..Ariza has better assist numbers...And let's not discuss defense...Metrics has to be amazing to put rose colored glasses on Gallo's numbers...

The better comparison for Gallo would be Ariza...

Ariza is a key piece to a conference finals team and is a good two way player.

I think Gallinari is more comparable to Mardy Collins and Landry Fields.

Ariza was a key piece on the Lakers' Championship team...Ariza was key on Washington's team...

Knixkik wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Knixkik wrote:Comparing an injury prone role player to an all-star/recent scoring champ is a bad comparison.

perhaps you need to revisit the term "value" and really try to figure out what it means to you.

Better player: Anthony, no argument there. More valuable, Anthony, because he is much more valuable to his team than Gallinari is. I understand he is an analytics sweet heart, but Gallinari is not going to command a max contract next go-around, no question there. If multiple teams are willing to offer him a max contract as they were Melo, then i'm wrong. But this conversation is pointless, we know where you stand...

perhaps you can delineate in what way melo is more valuable to the knicks because i don't see it. also, as i have explained very clearly: "what the market will bear" has no bearing on a player's true value. you apparently disagree but you should try to explain why.

No point in explaining, you won't agree. There's nothing i can tell you that everyone else doesn't every day you argue with them about Melo.

well all you have to say is "i believe that value is based upon what the market will bear."

can you say that?

When comparing 2 players of this degree, all it takes is common sense. But there will always be some fancy metrics that show Gallinari is better, which is fine. Numbers can tell you whatever you want them to if you are creative.

i am sorry but you sound evasive. i asked a very simple question. never mind about advanced numbers... do you equate "value" with "what the market will bear?

a player's value = what the market will bear

do you agree with this equation?

No i don't, but i think in many cases it supports it.

thank you for answering my simple question, i am grateful! however... "many cases" sure okay but what about in the case of carmelo anthony? do you agree with the following equation:

carmelo anthony's value to the knicks = what the market bore

i'd appreciate another simple answer to this question, thanks!

holfresh wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Knixkik wrote:Comparing an injury prone role player to an all-star/recent scoring champ is a bad comparison.

perhaps you need to revisit the term "value" and really try to figure out what it means to you.

Better player: Anthony, no argument there. More valuable, Anthony, because he is much more valuable to his team than Gallinari is. I understand he is an analytics sweet heart, but Gallinari is not going to command a max contract next go-around, no question there. If multiple teams are willing to offer him a max contract as they were Melo, then i'm wrong. But this conversation is pointless, we know where you stand...

perhaps you can delineate in what way melo is more valuable to the knicks because i don't see it. also, as i have explained very clearly: "what the market will bear" has no bearing on a player's true value. you apparently disagree but you should try to explain why.

No point in explaining, you won't agree. There's nothing i can tell you that everyone else doesn't every day you argue with them about Melo.

well all you have to say is "i believe that value is based upon what the market will bear."

can you say that?

When comparing 2 players of this degree, all it takes is common sense. But there will always be some fancy metrics that show Gallinari is better, which is fine. Numbers can tell you whatever you want them to if you are creative.

i am sorry but you sound evasive. i asked a very simple question. never mind about advanced numbers... do you equate "value" with "what the market will bear?

a player's value = what the market will bear

do you agree with this equation?

No i don't, but i think in many cases it supports it.

thank you for answering my simple question, i am grateful! however... "many cases" sure okay but what about in the case of carmelo anthony? do you agree with the following equation:

carmelo anthony's value to the knicks = what the market bore

i'd appreciate another simple answer to this question, thanks!

How is Ariza's value/salary compared to Gallo's value/salary??..I would appreciate a simple answer to this question, thanks!

by the same measures i have been using, trevor ariza no doubt has been a bit underpaid for his career and as a result is the better value overall:

gallinari will make 11.5 million and his ws/48 is 1.29, his box plus minus is 1.1
carmelo will make 24.5 million and his ws/48 is 1.36, his box plus minus is 1.4
trevor will make 8.2 million and his ws/48 is 0.98, his box plus minus is 1.6

note that his ws/48 is lower but his box plus minus is higher. seems like a bargain.

yet for some reason he keeps getting traded, so there may be an attitude and professionalism issue there. how else do you explain seven teams in 11 seasons?