callmened wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

callmened wrote:

newyorker4ever wrote:

EnySpree wrote:I love this kid.... but we sound like jackasses jumping on every player that becomes free. I believe in the kid as a point guard though. We do have Jimmer and Grant in the fold

Every player that gets cut gets his own thread on here no matter how good or bad he is. I think some people just wanna make a thread.

no no no...lol..dont throw me in that group. if anything, im the HATER who usually says this player/trade or that player/trade is a bad idea. ive always liked this kid as an McDs All american when he turned down duke to play with his daddy at Detroit U. i was hoping the knicks would sign him to a cheap contract last offseason

So newyorker4ever is "thread-shaming" you.

Pretty sad...folks should feel proud of any thread they start.

Hope your self-esteem is not damaged too much. Martin/Andrew have to clamp down on thread-shaming immediately!

"THREAD SHAMING"!!! hilarious. ive got to use that next time!

i dont start many posts often. i like to read and reply. but yeah, NONE of this stuff hurts my self esteem or inflates my self esteem. im here eating pancakes and watching law and order with the wifey in bed. later we'll head over to the knicks game to watch them lose. what hurts more is when my wife calls me a fool for continuing to watch the knicks. lol

Nothing to be ashamed of.

wargames wrote:

Finestrg wrote:Better player than Galloway moving forward imo. I don't think resigning Galloway is a necessity.

If his asking price is fair I would like to see the knicks keep him just because of the time/energy they have put into developing him so far.

Also I think McCallum is a better prospect than Jimmer going forward. If the knicks have no interest in Lawson (which I can at least understand from the perspective he is knucklehead in a slump) I hope they take a flyer on this kid instead.

Again, like Nix's comment, I agree with you too--I think that's Phil's thought process. I think they like Galloway a lot and are proud of themselves for having discovered him and brought him along this far. But what do we really have with this guy, honestly?? I don't look at him as an automatic keeper at all. OK player but if we had a chance to substitute a better talent in his place, I wouldn't hesitate for a sec.

Agree on your 2nd point too -- I think he very well may be a better player than Fredette. I'd actually love to see "Jimmy" get a chance here but we know that's not gonna happen--Rambis already said he's not displacing anyone to play him. So how do we evaluate him, esp. when most people dismiss any success a player has at the DL level? Agree on taking a flier on McCallum. If anything, they'll cut Jimmer after his 10 days are up (no one else is getting waived--it would've happened already) and then maybe we do take a look at McCallum. I'd be good with that--I like McCallum's skills. Then we see if he is indeed a better player than Galloway moving forward. We wouldn't need both--not the way I'd like to see the backcourt rebuilt.

Finestrg wrote:You know one of my problems with Phil -- evaluating players based on whether they're Phil Jackson players on not. You know how many good possibilities we're eliminating based on this? I honestly don't think this guy's very flexible -- on players, on the system we need to run, etc.. I think this hurts us, I really do.

I think that for Jackson- saying a guy can fit into the Triangle ready means that Phil thinks he has the BB IQ he wants in a player.

callmened wrote:

Finestrg wrote:You know one of my problems with Phil -- evaluating players based on whether they're Phil Jackson players on not. You know how many good possibilities we're eliminating based on this? I honestly don't think this guy's very flexible -- on players, on the system we need to run, etc.. I think this hurts us, I really do.

EXCELLENT POINT! i hate this PHILosphy that hes stuck to with the triangle. (point guard has to be a tall defender, etc etc).

yeah but that's a flat out bad assumption. Fisher. Steve Kerr. Armstrong. Gallo. Are these not guys who either played or were picked by Phil as PG's in his offense? Or, conversly, could you help me understand who you consider to be Phil's big PGs? Are you talking Kobe, MJ, Ron Harper? Who?

Every talent elevator has different things he looks for in a player and lines and exceptions for which are articulated, tried, and followed. Phil has his, so do all GM's.

What's new about this outside of tagging the word Triangle to Phil?

If you don't have a philosophy about what types of players you want I think you are behind the curve and just evaluating on an individual basis without thinking about team.

Finestrg wrote:

wargames wrote:

Finestrg wrote:Better player than Galloway moving forward imo. I don't think resigning Galloway is a necessity.

If his asking price is fair I would like to see the knicks keep him just because of the time/energy they have put into developing him so far.

Also I think McCallum is a better prospect than Jimmer going forward. If the knicks have no interest in Lawson (which I can at least understand from the perspective he is knucklehead in a slump) I hope they take a flyer on this kid instead.

Again, like Nix's comment, I agree with you too--I think that's Phil's thought process. I think they like Galloway a lot and are proud of themselves for having discovered him and brought him along this far. But what do we really have with this guy, honestly?? I don't look at him as an automatic keeper at all. OK player but if we had a chance to substitute a better talent in his place, I wouldn't hesitate for a sec.

Agree on your 2nd point too -- I think he very well may be a better player than Fredette. I'd actually love to see "Jimmy" get a chance here but we know that's not gonna happen--Rambis already said he's not displacing anyone to play him. So how do we evaluate him, esp. when most people dismiss any success a player has at the DL level? Agree on taking a flier on McCallum. If anything, they'll cut Jimmer after his 10 days are up (no one else is getting waived--it would've happened already) and then maybe we do take a look at McCallum. I'd be good with that--I like McCallum's skills. Then we see if he is indeed a better player than Galloway moving forward. We wouldn't need both--not the way I'd like to see the backcourt rebuilt.

Kris Humphries got cut today.

SocraticBallin22 wrote:From the brief video I saw, He loves to push the pace and is a good finisher at the basket (better than Gallo). If the Spurs are interested, it means he's also a smart player. If Rambo will not play Jimmer and he won't be resigned, I would take a flier on this kid.

Strange that the Spurs would cut him for Andre Miller?

newyorker4ever wrote:

wargames wrote:

Finestrg wrote:Better player than Galloway moving forward imo. I don't think resigning Galloway is a necessity.

If his asking price is fair I would like to see the knicks keep him just because of the time/energy they have put into developing him so far.

Also I think McCallum is a better prospect than Jimmer going forward. If the knicks have no interest in Lawson (which I can at least understand from the perspective he is knucklehead in a slump) I hope they take a flyer on this kid instead.

Lawson isn't out there to get.

I am assuming they will cut him, if they don't before Tuesday which is the last day he can be cut and still play in the playoffs I doubt it happens.

You know we won't do it, though. I mean we're a pathetic team, pathetic backcourt...I'd love to hear an explanation from uncle Phil as to why Ray McCallum wouldn't be worth taking a flier on, why he's not a "Phil guy" or a "triangle guy."

mreinman wrote:

Finestrg wrote:You know what -- ABSOLUTELY NO BRAINER to pick this dude up right now. I mean who even knew he'd be available? SA just did us a favor--is Phil smart enough to see it and capitalize? SA apparently wanted another vet behind Parker -- OK, well that's them. He definitely works for us, I can tell you that! Perfect guard with talent and upside to take a chance on right now...I really like his game. Dude can ball. Real crafty and smooth, excellent drive/finish game. Plays like he's been in the league for years...One hell of an underrated athlete that can really push the pace. Very sneaky athleticism--a guard you underestimate and don't see coming. I didn't realize how bouncy he is--wow. Overall quickness/acceleration--again, very underrated. Can score, handles the ball well, real PG skills, plays D, some prior experience playing with D-Will, still young, not too small at 6'2" (if that's truly an issue for Phil), 40" vertical (I'm not sure what nbadraft.net was thinking with their numerical evaluation--it's not accurate. The numbers for athleticism, quickness and potential should all be much higher--this dude's a low-mid 90s player on their scale all the way), coach's son, well spoken... Compare him to Galloway -- obviously the overall skill-set is much better and he does things and sees things develop so much quicker (give and go--before you know it he's at the rim finishing, finding guys at the rim, etc. It takes an eternity for Galloway to develop plays--some plays McCallum makes with ease Galloway's incapable of even making). Someone tell me what's not to like here...I'm sold. Bring him in now, play him and let's evaluate. He could be a nice piece to move forward with--a real nice step 1 toward rebuilding the backcourt for next yr. and beyond.

You know we won't do it, though. I mean we're a pathetic team, pathetic backcourt...I'd love to hear an explanation from uncle Phil as to why Ray McCallum wouldn't be worth taking a flier on, why he's not a "Phil guy" or a "triangle guy."

how about his really bad shooting %'s?

Like a lot of guys with only minimal playing time, I don't think it's much of an indicator. This guy's played only 8 mins a game this year, only 18 mpg career. That's way too small a sample to evaluate someone's shooting potential. Still, he's had some real bright moments in the NBA so far where he's shown he belongs...Langston Galloway has the same low FG% with over 3x the PT btw--how's that for a truer indicator? Look at McCallum's shooting % in college--he got better every year, over 49% overall his last year (over 56% from 2 on a good number of attempts--which indicates his knack to continually go get and make high % shots in close). That's excellent for a guard who takes a decent amount of shots.. He'll probably never be a great 3-pt shooter (Galloway has him there) but overall--everything else considered from overall speed/quickness, maintaining his dribble, seeing plays through and executing, driving & finishing, getting easy shots--McCallum's miles ahead of Galloway as a player. I'll take the tradeoff. For what it's worth, I think with hard work, McCallum could be a passable, even decent 3-pt shooter eventually (say 35%+). His stroke is clean and he has confidence.

Ahh, this whole discussion is probably moot anyway -- even though he should, Phil won't show any interest in this guy. Don't even know why we're all wasting our time -- if we got this dude, Rambis wouldn't play him anyway. Wouldn't wanna "displace" anyone who's been here the whole year, right? Yeah, we'll pass, not good enough for us, yet McCallum will wind up going to Detroit and really help that team make the playoffs this year and help fortify their backcourt for years to come. Watch SVG add a promising/dynamic young guard in McCallum and Phil pick up Steve Blake eventually because he's a triangle guy. YEAH!

Sounds like McCallum to DET is all but a done deal: http://www.detroitbadboys.com/2016/2/28/11129600/ray-mccallum-san-antonio-spurs-waived-interested-in-detroit-pistons

callmened wrote:exactly. sounds like he'll be headed to detroit where hes from. that would be perfect for him

Bothers me because another GM would recongnize the severity of the problem with have at PG and be out there actively looking for solutions. Even perceived short term fixes could wind up being long term solutions... Again I've been sayin' it -- beggars can't be choosers. How do we show zero interest in a guy like this? What's up with the continued loyalty to guys like Calderon, Sasha V, even Galloway who isn't great? All 3 of those guys need to be replaced. At least the first 2 -- you wanna tell me there's a place for Galloway as a 3rd PG/SG, OK--there just needs to be MUCH MORE talent put in place ahead of him first. Galloway can't be a primary component -- he's just not good enough. There are some decision makers out there that if knee-deep in our situation, they'd pounce on a kid like this. They'd act quickly and aggressively here--the furthest thing from their minds would be hurting Jose, Sasha or Langston's feelings. They'd give this kid McCallum the keys to the bus shortly after getting him and then assess whether he could be a long term solution. Too bad Phil's not that type of guy. I suppose he was last year to a degree with Alexey Shved; why not go the same route now with Ray McCallum? We're still in the same exact position basically. And even Rambis, man--if Phil added a McCallum, no guarantee Rambo would even play him. Dude's talking about not displacing guys that have been here the whole year. Huh?? Open your eyes, Kurt -- THEY SUCK!!! The continued loyalty to some of these guards we have is incredible to me. What do we owe these guys? They're all holding us back big-time! They have since day 1.

Rookie wrote:

Finestrg wrote:

callmened wrote:exactly. sounds like he'll be headed to detroit where hes from. that would be perfect for him

Bothers me because another GM would recongnize the severity of the problem with have at PG and be out there actively looking for solutions. Even perceived short term fixes could wind up being long term solutions... Again I've been sayin' it -- beggars can't be choosers. How do we show zero interest in a guy like this? What's up with the continued loyalty to guys like Calderon, Sasha V, even Galloway who isn't great? All 3 of those guys need to be replaced. At least the first 2 -- you wanna tell me there's a place for Galloway as a 3rd PG/SG, OK--there just needs to be MUCH MORE talent put in place ahead of him first. Galloway can't be a primary component -- he's just not good enough. There are some decision makers out there that if knee-deep in our situation, they'd pounce on a kid like this. They'd act quickly and aggressively here--the furthest thing from their minds would be hurting Jose, Sasha or Langston's feelings. They'd give this kid McCallum the keys to the bus shortly after getting him and then assess whether he could be a long term solution. Too bad Phil's not that type of guy. I suppose he was last year to a degree with Alexey Shved; why not go the same route now with Ray McCallum? We're still in the same exact position basically. And even Rambis, man--if Phil added a McCallum, no guarantee Rambo would even play him. Dude's talking about not displacing guys that have been here the whole year. Huh?? Open your eyes, Kurt -- THEY SUCK!!! The continued loyalty to some of these guards we have is incredible to me. What do we owe these guys? They're all holding us back big-time!

sad that a kid like McCullough is a 3rd sting PG on a good team, but would likely be the best PG on the Knicks and we aren't even interested :(

Agreed. It's astonishing.