bitty41 wrote:

Marv wrote:

bitty41 wrote:Question why is Walsh not held accountable like Layden and Isiah were by fans on here?

Does losing count less if you do it while under the cap?

isiah and layden were given more time than this before they got turned against.

walsh will offer the max to lebron immediately upon the clock striking. if he doesn’t take it ,he'll offer it to wade.

if neither take it i won't blame walsh. imo it was the right thing to do to clear space and go for one of those guys.

Walsh was brought here to change the culture of losing. And thus far he hasn't done that and he shouldn't be given a pass or a pat on the head with a job well done. I don't care who the Knicks sign or who they trade or keep as long as the Knicks start winning. See I'm not fussy about brand name players I'll take the Knicks winning anyway I can get it.

Walsh's plan is dump the old roster and rebuild a team with the good parts that are left (Gallo, Chandler, Lee, Hill, Douglas, etc) and sign a star. If there is patience its because he hasnt had the chance to finish executing his play as ISiah and Layden got.

fishmike wrote:

bitty41 wrote:

Marv wrote:

bitty41 wrote:Question why is Walsh not held accountable like Layden and Isiah were by fans on here?

Does losing count less if you do it while under the cap?

isiah and layden were given more time than this before they got turned against.

walsh will offer the max to lebron immediately upon the clock striking. if he doesn’t take it ,he'll offer it to wade.

if neither take it i won't blame walsh. imo it was the right thing to do to clear space and go for one of those guys.

Walsh was brought here to change the culture of losing. And thus far he hasn't done that and he shouldn't be given a pass or a pat on the head with a job well done. I don't care who the Knicks sign or who they trade or keep as long as the Knicks start winning. See I'm not fussy about brand name players I'll take the Knicks winning anyway I can get it.

the Layden/Isiah question has a simple answer: Isiah executed his plan. It was retool with Marbury, Zach, Crawford, Jerome, draft some young guys, get a bigtime coach and compete at a high level. He spent what? $200 million in player contracts and coaches? He executed his plan and it was a disaster. Same with Layden. He traded Ewing, Spree, etc to turn the roster over and continue to be a playoff team. He executed his plan and that was a disaster.

Walsh's plan is dump the old roster and rebuild a team with the good parts that are left (Gallo, Chandler, Lee, Hill, Douglas, etc) and sign a star. If there is patience its because he hasnt had the chance to finish executing his play as ISiah and Layden got.

Where does the objective of winning fit into all of this?

The Knicks wanted to put themselves in a position to sign a Wade or Lebron. I can understand sacrificing a half a year of winning for the opportunity to sign the greatest player of all time. What I dont understand are some of the moves that have been made in the interim:

Was D'Antoni the right hire?

Why did we concentrate on a scrub like Roberson, when a guy like Marrow of the Warriors was available in summer league?

Why didnt we draft Jennings when we needed a PG?

Why didnt we sign Iverson if we're in win now mode?

Why did we trade for Larry Hughes?

So, Bitty, I'm just curious as to what exactly your objections are with the Walsh regime in specific terms.

Allanfan20 wrote:Bitty, you're right. He hasn't been winning and he was brought there to start that. With that said, I don't think he's had very much to work with, although you can argue (Or not) that his drafting could have been better. His trades were made clearly to clear capspace, for when hopefully the winning could start when we get a big free agent. Whether it works or not, I don't know. Am I a huge fan of the plan? I'm honestly not sure.

Unfortunately, it's still wait and see, but I feel your pain Bitty, because my patience is almost as thin as yours, at this point. I expected to have a much improved team this year, and we haven't gotton it, besides in December. Very dissapointing.

There is a clear distinction between the coach and the gm. Walsh's moment is in the summer of 2010. MDA's time was when he was hired and going forward. The 2010 period was only suppose to reinforce and boost it. I get the feeling Walsh is scratching his head at the team's performance much as fans are doing.

Walsh did change the culture: We got rid of the losers, are opening up cap space with also allows for creative trades. You can bring in more than goes out.

Briggs suggests we could be winning with losers instead of losing with the losers we had. I don't see that. I think losing with young players does at least develope them as NBA players. And we have done that.

Also If Zdumb and Crawful were still here playing with Brook Lopez he would never see the ball and we would be crying about what a bad pick he was. Seems we lost plenty with Craw and Zdumb.

Lets put it this way did anyone think when walsh took over it would take less than 3-4 years to really turn this thing around with out the draft picks we had traded the last few years?

bitty41 wrote:It's very naive to believe that NYers have been patient with Walsh for any other reason than the possibility of the Knicks signing Lebron.

We are patient not only b/c of maybe signing Lebron, but also because we recognize in Walsh's moves a change of direction for our beloved team. No more stupid starphucking, but rather a rebuild based on a combination of cap flexibility and young players like The Mayor, The Rooster, and the human double-double named "No D Lee". What did we have to sacrifice to achieve this change of direction? Winning now.

Seems like a fine plan to me. I even enjoyed watching a few games this year, which is WAY more than any of the past few years.

Gallo and Chandler look outstanding. Lee keeps improving and maybe he adds defense next season. Things are looking up around here, thanks in large part to Donnie's brass cajones and his having the juice to stand up to Jimmy "Trust Fund" Dolan.

Nalod wrote:Walsh did change the culture: We got rid of the losers, are opening up cap space with also allows for creative trades. You can bring in more than goes out.

Briggs suggests we could be winning with losers instead of losing with the losers we had. I don't see that. I think losing with young players does at least develope them as NBA players. And we have done that.

losing is losing... we were losing then & we're losing now... nothing has changed except we've gained cap flexibility this summer, which for that alone was well worth trading Zach & Jamal for... but don't be disillusioned & think that Walsh has somehow changed the culture here in NY... this team still has a loser's mentality & they're incapable of stepping up when they know they have to step up... there is not 1 single "winner" on this team that has proven they have what it takes to man up & lead this team... until they step up & prove themselves worthy of changing this label, every single one of them is a loser... don't mean they can't change that label next year after we add some talent, but right now this team ain't goin' nowhere w/the guys they currently have... they need to add some serious talent before u can say Donnie's changed the culture.

sebstar wrote:Bitty, you've gotta get more specific. You keep spitting out this cliche about winning and folks around here are just going to volley back with the Knick management talking point about sacrificing the present for the future.

The Knicks wanted to put themselves in a position to sign a Wade or Lebron. I can understand sacrificing a half a year of winning for the opportunity to sign the greatest player of all time. What I dont understand are some of the moves that have been made in the interim:

Was D'Antoni the right hire?

Why did we concentrate on a scrub like Roberson, when a guy like Marrow of the Warriors was available in summer league?

Why didnt we draft Jennings when we needed a PG?

Why didnt we sign Iverson if we're in win now mode?

Why did we trade for Larry Hughes?

So, Bitty, I'm just curious as to what exactly your objections are with the Walsh regime in specific terms.

This is what I don't get one minute you guys say it's about clearing cap space and not about Lebron specifically but than you guys convientiely use his name when making the point about who cap space so crucial. Which is it?

Think of my position like this: I want the Knicks to get to point A (winning record, playoffs, respectability). I don't need a brand name wearing a Knicks jersey for me to be satisfied. We've made this whole thing more than it is Walsh isn't the Chairman of the Federal Reserve he's the President of an NBA team. People have created these bogus objectives but in reality no one will care what Walsh has done or not done if the Knicks continue to lose.

The other things you listed I don't need to second guess Walsh I just want to see him get results.

Btw: Greatest Player of all time really? Wilt or MJ aren't playing so who could you possibly be talking about.

Panos wrote:

bitty41 wrote:Where does the objective of winning fit into all of this?

Bottom line is this.
In the NBA you need top 5 talent to even sniff an NBA Championship.
Further, you have limited resources to go get great players.
Resources being salaries doled out and limit being the salary cap.
When you're maxed out with players that are clearly NOT stars in this league, you need
to do something to *get* stars.
There are only 3 possibilities:
1) get a 1 or 2 pick in the draft, or get lucky with a pick after that,
2) make trades,
3) sign free agents.

#1 - Unless you want to tank for a couple years, and hope we don't end up with an Oden or KMart, it can take a long time, if ever.
(see Clips, Milwaukee, Memphis, etc.)
#2 - When your team consists of overpaid talent, other teams don't want to trade for them, because they
are subject to the same salary cap constraints we are. You just end up taking back worse talent or worse contracts.
#3 - In order to do this you need to be UNDER THE CAP. BY A LOT. Not sure why this is so difficult to comprehend.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Even if we don't land Lebron, I'm fully on board with a smart rebuild that includes players that are worth their contracts. I just pray that when Walsh finally puts pen to paper, those signings are exactly that.

I don't give a crap about Roberson, or Harrington, or Hughes. We won't remember their names by 2011.

So a team that hasn't even won a playoff game in nearly a decade is only willing to accept a Championship caliber of a team? That's like a homeless guy saying he won't accept any shelter unless it's a million dollar mansion.

I love the bolded section because according to Knicks fans only two or three players in the league are worth their contracts.

sebstar wrote:This isnt worth the back and forth, Bitty, because we're debating unknowns and that is the result of the 2010 offseason.

The strategy is to clear space to sign a superstar. Thats the plan. Every rebuilding approach has its risks (building thru the draft, starphucking trades, ext...) so all we can do is wait and see at this point. Nothing is ever guaranteed.

Thats why I was trying to get you to talk about tangible moves rather than debating about Lebron. The mere prospect of signing Lebron is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and Walsh owes it to the fans of NY to at least give us a shot at signing him. If that falls thru, then he has to have a backup plan.

Oh, and Lebron at his age is head and shoulders above anybody who has ever picked up a basketball. The only thing he is missing is rings, which he will get. Just look at the talent level of the teams he has played on and their win/loss totals.

What unknowns the Knicks are losing correct? That is fact why do we keep running away from this fact? There is no debate to be had if Walsh makes moves to turn the Knicks around you won't hear any complaints out of me.

We will have to agree to disagree about Lebron I think it's nuts how people talk about this guy I chalk it up to them being very young (too young to remember MJ) or they are suffering from long-term memory loss or they just started watching basketball 5 years ago.