again, all 3 picks for 1?

okay, maybe they could have but that's not the point.

that's a lot to give up for an unproven commodity, especially given the knicks situation, and the perpsective on high schoolers back then, which was that they were a MAJOR risk.

yes we went for vets, but i demonstrated numerous examples where grunfeld tried to get the team younger. in fact, that was why he was getting hailed.

houston a "veteran"? haha. yeah, he was a "veteran" who had been in the league, what 3 years? coming of a playoff team averaging 20ppg and one of the best up and coming sgs in the league, with ewing? yeah, why would we want that?

of course NOW everyone says kobe, but c'mon a team like the knicks needed guys who could contribute right away.

this is silly.

and yes, why would a team on the verge of a title, like the knicks in that period, take a gamble on a hs player for 3 1st rounders, on top college teams, who were all considered good picks at the time? (as the record shows the knicks were given high marks for their picks)

the lakers were not a good team at that point, sorry. they were mediocre at best, so they could afford to take a risk.

and what of dumars pick of darko on a title contending team? he took the "risk" and now gets railed on for it.

i think the knicks wanted kobe, but didn't want to give up all three picks for him. why is that so crazy?

where does it say grunfeld was packaging the two picks for wallace?

yes, he had wallace highly rated, but there are a few articles that show they also wanted kobe and a few others (nash was one, i think).

you all have no idea what he was thinking so please stop saying "this is what happened"

is this the psychic friends network or a knicks fan forum?

How many perimeter players had come out of high school up until then and succeeded?

Kobe went 13th for a reason.

Posted by sebstar:

Jerry West traded Vlade for bean....he knew. He did that without hesitation. All one had to do was watch him play, Kobe was good from the moment he stepped foot on the court, he just needed seasoning, obviously.

I mean, thats what GM's get paid millions for. To do their research and make the best pick. This thread isnt unfair.

i agree... to PresIke, no one here is saying "this is what happened" when we say we could have traded our picks to move up, just that we find it hard to believe it wasn't possible... again, we all acknowledge this is 20/20 hindsight, but the failure IMHO is in the fact that allowing a once in a generation talent like Kobe get by us when we probably had the means to trade up to get him is a hard pill to swallow... ain't no complaining gonna do us any good, but i mean the thread is "let's talk about the 1996 Draft" afterall... if u don't wanna talk about hindsight arguments then it's probably not the thread u wanna be reading to begin with.

i dunno if u'r talking to me but i never said Grunfeld was a bad GM... i already recognized the fact that his moves led us to making a title run in '99 & several playoff berths... IMO it's OK to question moves after the fact & raise what if's, it's not like i'm pretending i know what actually went on behind the scenes... but i do think it was a failure of scouting to not go harder after a talent like Kobe... & yes, i think 12 other teams whiffed on it too... stuff happens.

tms, naw, that was more for sebstar, and i think pharzone (?) who seemed to be saying grunfeld made poor decisions (or at least blew the '96 draft).

when you are a "storied franchise from NY and haven't won a title, i think it makes some sense to be envious of other successful teams, but while the picks here didn't become stars, they were used to acquire other talent which were much better.

emotionally invested in grunfeld? (why you keep calling him grumfeld?)

haha...i'm just the kind of cat that wants to make sure all of the evidence is presented.

you call them excuses, i call it evidence to the contrary of very strong statements being made standing on what looks to me like a lot of straw and speculation with zero evidence, like "i can't believe he couldn't trade X for X" even though there is no evidence of this specific deal being considered or not.

i never said it was all three things you are listing:

1) no one will trade with him -- also a misrepresentation of the point which was that maybe teams liked their own picks and that this may have contributed to, perhaps, teams asking for more than the knicks thought was worth making the deal.

2) he won't take a high schooler -- also a simplistic misrepresentation -- since the point was that given the team's situation (something you continue to ignore in your assessment, which any good gm or manager anywhere would do) you look at team needs (which i wrote out in detail a few posts back).

3) everyone liked the picks -- which also ignores the point that wallace dropped, who was highly rated by many and that given the knicks picks, they may have not felt the urgency to move of them + ??? for someone like a 18 year old unknown, and may be why they decided not to trade up (if they could).

the point is it could have been any of these reasons, not all three.

i actually said it could be one or the other or a combination of factors, of which none of us know.

we passed on a "generational talent". sorry i didn't realize we had a pick from 1-12 in the draft.

this is self-loathing knick bashing at its finest. and what of the other 12 teams, including charlotte? we were a title contending team and the lakers mediocre. that is not something you can ignore.

when one has less to lose than another it is much easier to take a risk like that.

the "west knew but everyone else didn't" stuff is beyond silly. west was good for identifying kobe, but grunfeld was interested, and maybe he had a better package (as i also outlined earlier) and was in better position to get kobe versus the knicks.

but for you, these points that are not exactly crazy and make a lot of sense are "excuses" why we didn't know kobe was going to be who he is. west may have thought that too, but he was able to draft him.

you're more than entitled to your opinion, but i do feel that we just don't know enough to say this is what happened or not. i have no clue, to be honest. i'm just trying to look at the entire picture to make sense of it.

[Edited by - PresIke on 04-30-2009 5:09 PM]

easy on John Wallace folks...

Really? People would've been okay with trading three firsts to "move up a few slots"? I know its hard to see that everyone would've been screaming that the team gave up to much value then, but that would've been the prevailing opinion.