it'd be nice to have Andre Igodala and Brandon Roy and a higher pick from the 2005 draft. but every team in the league can do this. hindsight is easier than foresight. some people were saying back when we got Marbury that it was horrible, but some people were happy and are now changing course.

Posted by crzymdups:

it'd be nice to have Andre Igodala and Brandon Roy and a higher pick from the 2005 draft. but every team in the league can do this. hindsight is easier than foresight. some people were saying back when we got Marbury that it was horrible, but some people were happy and are now changing course.

It's not hindsight if you said it when it happened.

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by crzymdups:

it'd be nice to have Andre Igodala and Brandon Roy and a higher pick from the 2005 draft. but every team in the league can do this. hindsight is easier than foresight. some people were saying back when we got Marbury that it was horrible, but some people were happy and are now changing course.

It's not hindsight if you said it when it happened.

I noted that. But you can also go back to trading Ewing and Camby and re-upping houston if you want to explain how we got here and how we could be better. this is pointless. every unsuccessful team in the NBA can do this for every draft.

^^ too early to tell, there are still picks to be made.

Posted by crzymdups:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by jaydh:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by jaydh:

^^ just to get more value out of the pick, and you never know. Maybe Paxson expected Curry to die thereby making the knicks be as bad as LB made them anyways.

Since the marginal value was miniscule, you know - because everyone expected that we'd be considerably better, it seems conceivable that Isiah would have been able to bargain for atleast top 3 protection, no?

I'm really not sure what when on with the negotiations, none of us are.

Sure we do. We know that Isiah got taken...again.

you'd have a better argument if the Bulls had actually gotten a player with their pick.

It's not who would fit the Bulls better it's about who would have been available to the Knicks at #2, based on their needs.

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by crzymdups:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by jaydh:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by jaydh:

^^ just to get more value out of the pick, and you never know. Maybe Paxson expected Curry to die thereby making the knicks be as bad as LB made them anyways.

Since the marginal value was miniscule, you know - because everyone expected that we'd be considerably better, it seems conceivable that Isiah would have been able to bargain for atleast top 3 protection, no?

I'm really not sure what when on with the negotiations, none of us are.

Sure we do. We know that Isiah got taken...again.

you'd have a better argument if the Bulls had actually gotten a player with their pick.

It's not who would fit the Bulls better it's about who would have been available to the Knicks at #2, based on their needs.

no, actually that's hindsight isles... you keep talking about the #2 pick as if the Knicks knew that's where they'd be picking... no one knew they'd be that bad last year... not LB, not Paxson, not Isiah, not Dolan, & definitely not you or anyone else on this forum.

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by crzymdups:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by jaydh:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by jaydh:

^^ just to get more value out of the pick, and you never know. Maybe Paxson expected Curry to die thereby making the knicks be as bad as LB made them anyways.

Since the marginal value was miniscule, you know - because everyone expected that we'd be considerably better, it seems conceivable that Isiah would have been able to bargain for atleast top 3 protection, no?

I'm really not sure what when on with the negotiations, none of us are.

Sure we do. We know that Isiah got taken...again.

you'd have a better argument if the Bulls had actually gotten a player with their pick.

It's not who would fit the Bulls better it's about who would have been available to the Knicks at #2, based on their needs.

we could actually do this for the Bulls too, ya know - like what would have happened if they'd never traded Brand? or why didn't they draft Roy? or what if they kept Chandler over Big Ben.

every team can do this. think the Suns are happy with Marcus Banks for 5yr $25M? could they have gotten someone instead who would have been the difference against the Mavs this year?

I love how when people do this and they give us Emeka Okafor and Bynum in 04 and 05, they then think that we still would have had the #2 overall pick. it's just magic I tell you! our record would have been exactly the same no matter what the roster.

this exercise is utterly pointless.

Posted by jaydh:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by jaydh:

^^ just to get more value out of the pick, and you never know. Maybe Paxson expected Curry to die thereby making the knicks be as bad as LB made them anyways.

Since the marginal value was miniscule, you know - because everyone expected that we'd be considerably better, it seems conceivable that Isiah would have been able to bargain for atleast top 3 protection, no?

I'm really not sure what when on with the negotiations, none of us are.

Right, of course. But, the reasoning that people are using to defend the lack of protection is ironically the very reason why protection should have been more attainable. In the scenario where the record of our team was projected to be 10-20, top 3 protection should have been meaningless to both GMs. In other words, it would be analagous to to quibbling over your share of the Mega-millions winnings before the drawing. Since the extra asset (no protection) was Isiah's to give, however, its reasonable to expect that he would show more caution that Paxson. The seller should always be more acutely aware of the price of his product than the buyer.

The other case is that Paxson somehow was able to predict the demise of the team under Larry better than our very own GM. That would be even more concerning because it means that Paxson was strategically able to get Isiah to undersell the picks. Neither scenario is particularly complementary of Isiah.

In response to the irrelevant hindsight discussion, I was against the trade at the moment it was made -along with Masterplan, Islesfan and Briggs, if I remember correctly. So, I'm not sure how that factors in. I think it can be fair to judge a GM based on hindsight, regardless.

Posted by TMS:

Posted by Masterplan:

Posted by TMS:

& even still, i make the deal... LaMarcus Aldridge, Adam Morrison or Ty Thomas are not better prospects than Eddy Curry no matter how you slice it, & you still don't know who the Knicks will end up getting w/CHI's pick in the swap this season either.

i disagree, would take either of those bigs over eddy. partly that's just me, but it's nowhere near as clear-cut as you're making it out to be.

actually, totally in hindsight, what could have been a good move with the #2 pick would have been trade it for a later pick that year and another potential lottery pick this year.

if we hadn't made the Curry trade, then i'd agree w/u on the second part... but again, no one knew we'd end up w/the #2 overall pick when the trade was made.

not trying to knock anyone with that bit. just a thought on draft strategy given the relative strengths of last year and this year's drafts

as for the 1st part, every media source, scout & hoops commentator said Curry would have been taken #1 in the draft last year had he been eligible along w/those other guys, so i disagree w/u... it really was that clear cut.

and to a man they all hated the balkman pick... commentators are far from the last word.

i never really got that argument though. were they comparing curry now to rookies? that's pretty unfair. are they saying the eddy from the 2001 draft would have gone #1? probably, but hasn't he disappointed those expectations on him entering the league?

i disagreed with you first...

Right or wrong there is at least some kind of rationale behind every move that Isiah has made except two. JJ and Francis. They made no sense and there wasn't a person alive that thought it would work out in our favor. Yet somehow we did it anyway. And when they inevitably failed what do we do as an organization:

1.) Diflect attention from how much money we gave JJ by saying we made the move because we had no center. Which in itself is an indictment

2.) Blame someone else as in the Francis case.

It's so easy for me to see. We are an excuse filled organization. There hasn't been accountability here since Latrell Spreweel was running the roost. Everynow and then we have a scapegoat to point fingers at. But never once do we sit back and ask questions like, why is it that our team comes out flat in big games? Why is it that every 20 games or so our team looks like they are meeting for the first time? We don't want to ask tough questions because that will make us point fingers within. Instead we will just find the next person to blame.

7 years of the same crap but Bip will say it again. Set a standard and philosophy of the type of team and player you want to build and only target players that FIT THAT MOLD. Doesn't matter if JJ is the only center available. If he doesn't fit your organizational work ethic at center you pass. We still haven't set a standard here. And fans still can't figure out why the same problems persist year afer tyear.