fishmike wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:What do we get for keeping him? A .450 team with $30 mil less in cap space?

no you get the team you had 2 years ago, for starters

Only if you go out and grab 5 or 6 great role players, but we're in a much better situation if we do that regardless of what happens with Melo.

Who were our five/six "great" role players that year?

JR I guess and Kidd for part of the season. Who else?

Get ready for the great explanation of how we would have 2 or 3 chips by now (or at least be sitting on great cap space and yoots and draft picks) had we only stayed with Gallo, Wilson, Moz and AR. That's four! And the invisible great players we would have made with our tremendous draft expertise! There's 5 and 6!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The real issue is that we could have gotten him as a FA, used the players we traded for him in other ways, if we chose to, and have the picks we gave up to draft or trade.

Anthony squeezed us to make a trade and seriously reduced our ability to surround him with the best possible complimentary players back then, and by opting out, he is again squeezing the team and potentially threatening our ability to surround him with the best possible complimentary players.

Gallinari would have been a decent compliment to Anthony, and nobody can say if he would have been injured had he remained here. Mosgov would be an excellent backup center and spot starter if he had remained here, and who knows if Felton would have ballooned up and shown such a steep decline. I'm not a Felton fan, but he was having a career season when we traded him, and liked it here.

But none of this played out because we had to make the trade for Anthony and not compete for him as a FA.

If he returns it should be on terms that also help the team, not just him.

And you could guarantee that Melo doesn't end up in Brooklyn?
And Stat would not have ever gotten hurt and Shump would have injury free seasons and we draft incredibly well and Dolan sells the team, and Wilson Chandler would be on his fourth All-Star team and Lin would have been discovered earlier and...

Gallo was hurt when he was here. Moz has spent most of his time as a third string 5 until very recently and Felton came back here in better shape with a chip on his shoulder and was ranked last in the league as a PG. All that was going to magically disappear because Melo didn't come as a FA?

Please, how long does this go on?

Nothing is guaranteed. You don't, for the most part, make decisions based on injury potential, or expect injuries to happen. You want flexibility and the ability to take advantage of, but also create, opportunities. You want your team to control, to some degree, its destiny.

Anthony, to some degree, put shackles on the team because of the trade. We picked up some vets and got surprise performances from some players when we reached Rnd 2, but that roster was clearly not a "team on the rise" roster built on younger veterans with some youth we expected to progress.

With Anthony now playing the field (and having declared his intention to do so last year, or all things), I should be the one saying "how long does this go on?"

Jackson did a great job in the Dallas trade, getting rid of Felton and Chandler (who Dallas clearly values more than I do), picking up a serviceable PG, another young PG who might surprise people, and some picks we used to draft a couple of guys who just might make a difference in the future. He clearly took advantage of a situation with certain assets we possessed.

Giving Anthony a max contract sets the franchise back a step or to IMHO, and negates some of the momentum that was started after our recent trade.

tfk that you? So letting him walk for nothing? A HOF player in his prime moves the franchise FORWARD? I thought winning was a good thing.

oh great - now we're going to hear about how Melo has no shot of making the HOF

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:What do we get for keeping him? A .450 team with $30 mil less in cap space?

no you get the team you had 2 years ago, for starters

Only if you go out and grab 5 or 6 great role players, but we're in a much better situation if we do that regardless of what happens with Melo.

Who were our five/six "great" role players that year?

JR I guess and Kidd for part of the season. Who else?

Novak, Tyson, a younger Pablo, Copeland.
They were all at least good if not great role players. Tyson was an all-star (with a great WS) and the other guys all played far better than what their salaries were.

Tyson was not a "role" player.

Novak was Not good that year.

Copeland barely played for us and barely played anywhere else. Not that good.

Pablo? Great role player? C'mon man

Tyson: OK fine. I should have said 4 to 5 role players and 1 all-star. That only adds to my point about how much more we'd have to add just to get back to that level, though.
You seem to be selectively using and ignoring WS. If an average player makes $6 mil a season and has a win share of .100, if you can get a guy significantly above that (.110 to .130 range) for a third the price, isn't that outstanding? They're basically guys producing at what you'd expect to buy for around $8 or 9 mil a year.

My point is/was really that the knick team that year was a pretty bad team. How they won 54 games is beyond me. And you said that they had 4-5 "great" role players which I believe is far from the truth.

As far as WS, where have I used it selectively?

Pretty much in your description of everyone in this discussion. Do you think Novak, Copeland, and Pablo were pretty good and Tyson was an all-star that year or are you ignoring the WS?
I took the average of the predictions of all the advanced stats models before the season started and it was 50 wins for the Knicks that year. So they achieved what they should have.
Put it this way, to get back to that level by next year, we're going to have to find ways to get guys who should be making around $7 or 8 mil to come here for $1 to 3 mil.

If a guy has an ok WS48 (Novak .116 - 20 mpg) does that make him a "great" role player?

Obviously WS is not every thing but I used it as my alarm to take a deeper look. Often I don't see why the WS is low especially with guards.

Tyson always had a great WS but I could never stand him or his game. I am sure that bias plays into it as well.

We will def need production from cheap players to be successful though I don't even care about this year. I want a full rebuild.

I agree with part of Bonn's point. Im not sure the role players *were* better, but they sure as hell PLAYED better. Copeland and Novak have done nothing since leaving the guy (who doesnt make anyone better). But what Bonn is right about is nobody has stepped up. Thats what the Dallas trade was about. Calderon can set the ton Kidd set. Larkin will be a nice P&R PG off the bench. Early should give you quality minutes off the bench. Phil added some shooters and a floor general. Is he done? I suspect he's not...

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:What do we get for keeping him? A .450 team with $30 mil less in cap space?

no you get the team you had 2 years ago, for starters

Only if you go out and grab 5 or 6 great role players, but we're in a much better situation if we do that regardless of what happens with Melo.

Who were our five/six "great" role players that year?

JR I guess and Kidd for part of the season. Who else?

Novak, Tyson, a younger Pablo, Copeland.
They were all at least good if not great role players. Tyson was an all-star (with a great WS) and the other guys all played far better than what their salaries were.

Tyson was not a "role" player.

Novak was Not good that year.

Copeland barely played for us and barely played anywhere else. Not that good.

Pablo? Great role player? C'mon man

Tyson: OK fine. I should have said 4 to 5 role players and 1 all-star. That only adds to my point about how much more we'd have to add just to get back to that level, though.
You seem to be selectively using and ignoring WS. If an average player makes $6 mil a season and has a win share of .100, if you can get a guy significantly above that (.110 to .130 range) for a third the price, isn't that outstanding? They're basically guys producing at what you'd expect to buy for around $8 or 9 mil a year.

My point is/was really that the knick team that year was a pretty bad team. How they won 54 games is beyond me. And you said that they had 4-5 "great" role players which I believe is far from the truth.

As far as WS, where have I used it selectively?

Pretty much in your description of everyone in this discussion. Do you think Novak, Copeland, and Pablo were pretty good and Tyson was an all-star that year or are you ignoring the WS?
I took the average of the predictions of all the advanced stats models before the season started and it was 50 wins for the Knicks that year. So they achieved what they should have.
Put it this way, to get back to that level by next year, we're going to have to find ways to get guys who should be making around $7 or 8 mil to come here for $1 to 3 mil.

If a guy has an ok WS48 (Novak .116 - 20 mpg) does that make him a "great" role player?

Obviously WS is not every thing but I used it as my alarm to take a deeper look. Often I don't see why the WS is low especially with guards.

Tyson always had a great WS but I could never stand him or his game. I am sure that bias plays into it as well.

We will def need production from cheap players to be successful though I don't even care about this year. I want a full rebuild.

I agree with part of Bonn's point. Im not sure the role players *were* better, but they sure as hell PLAYED better. Copeland and Novak have done nothing since leaving the guy (who doesnt make anyone better). But what Bonn is right about is nobody has stepped up. Thats what the Dallas trade was about. Calderon can set the ton Kidd set. Larkin will be a nice P&R PG off the bench. Early should give you quality minutes off the bench. Phil added some shooters and a floor general. Is he done? I suspect he's not...

I agree that nobody stepped up last season and I think a lot of that is on the coach too.

Well we replaced the 4th winningest coach in franchise history with a rookie. It would be a pleasant surprise but I don't think you can forecast improvement there either.

We can only improve here.

And its a big difference to have Phil as the GM who is not an enabler of horrible basketball.

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:What do we get for keeping him? A .450 team with $30 mil less in cap space?

no you get the team you had 2 years ago, for starters

Only if you go out and grab 5 or 6 great role players, but we're in a much better situation if we do that regardless of what happens with Melo.

Who were our five/six "great" role players that year?

JR I guess and Kidd for part of the season. Who else?

Novak, Tyson, a younger Pablo, Copeland.
They were all at least good if not great role players. Tyson was an all-star (with a great WS) and the other guys all played far better than what their salaries were.

Tyson was not a "role" player.

Novak was Not good that year.

Copeland barely played for us and barely played anywhere else. Not that good.

Pablo? Great role player? C'mon man

Tyson: OK fine. I should have said 4 to 5 role players and 1 all-star. That only adds to my point about how much more we'd have to add just to get back to that level, though.
You seem to be selectively using and ignoring WS. If an average player makes $6 mil a season and has a win share of .100, if you can get a guy significantly above that (.110 to .130 range) for a third the price, isn't that outstanding? They're basically guys producing at what you'd expect to buy for around $8 or 9 mil a year.

My point is/was really that the knick team that year was a pretty bad team. How they won 54 games is beyond me. And you said that they had 4-5 "great" role players which I believe is far from the truth.

As far as WS, where have I used it selectively?

Pretty much in your description of everyone in this discussion. Do you think Novak, Copeland, and Pablo were pretty good and Tyson was an all-star that year or are you ignoring the WS?
I took the average of the predictions of all the advanced stats models before the season started and it was 50 wins for the Knicks that year. So they achieved what they should have.
Put it this way, to get back to that level by next year, we're going to have to find ways to get guys who should be making around $7 or 8 mil to come here for $1 to 3 mil.

If a guy has an ok WS48 (Novak .116 - 20 mpg) does that make him a "great" role player?

Obviously WS is not every thing but I used it as my alarm to take a deeper look. Often I don't see why the WS is low especially with guards.

Tyson always had a great WS but I could never stand him or his game. I am sure that bias plays into it as well.

We will def need production from cheap players to be successful though I don't even care about this year. I want a full rebuild.

I agree with part of Bonn's point. Im not sure the role players *were* better, but they sure as hell PLAYED better. Copeland and Novak have done nothing since leaving the guy (who doesnt make anyone better). But what Bonn is right about is nobody has stepped up. Thats what the Dallas trade was about. Calderon can set the ton Kidd set. Larkin will be a nice P&R PG off the bench. Early should give you quality minutes off the bench. Phil added some shooters and a floor general. Is he done? I suspect he's not...

That's the best imaginable scenario. You're talking about a 33 year old whose teams always do better when he's on the bench. Some of his advanced stats (including WS) look good but there are enough warning signs that I don't think you can forecast any significant improvement.

so if the win shares are bad its gospel. But if they are good you have to look at "other warning signs."

Calderon is here to create shots and hit open jumpers, the two things he excels at.

One can't rely just on Win Shares but it seems to be a really good starting point. And if you look at the top 50 its certainly seems that it passes the eye test too.

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:What do we get for keeping him? A .450 team with $30 mil less in cap space?

no you get the team you had 2 years ago, for starters

Only if you go out and grab 5 or 6 great role players, but we're in a much better situation if we do that regardless of what happens with Melo.

Who were our five/six "great" role players that year?

JR I guess and Kidd for part of the season. Who else?

Novak, Tyson, a younger Pablo, Copeland.
They were all at least good if not great role players. Tyson was an all-star (with a great WS) and the other guys all played far better than what their salaries were.

Tyson was not a "role" player.

Novak was Not good that year.

Copeland barely played for us and barely played anywhere else. Not that good.

Pablo? Great role player? C'mon man

Tyson: OK fine. I should have said 4 to 5 role players and 1 all-star. That only adds to my point about how much more we'd have to add just to get back to that level, though.
You seem to be selectively using and ignoring WS. If an average player makes $6 mil a season and has a win share of .100, if you can get a guy significantly above that (.110 to .130 range) for a third the price, isn't that outstanding? They're basically guys producing at what you'd expect to buy for around $8 or 9 mil a year.

My point is/was really that the knick team that year was a pretty bad team. How they won 54 games is beyond me. And you said that they had 4-5 "great" role players which I believe is far from the truth.

As far as WS, where have I used it selectively?

Pretty much in your description of everyone in this discussion. Do you think Novak, Copeland, and Pablo were pretty good and Tyson was an all-star that year or are you ignoring the WS?
I took the average of the predictions of all the advanced stats models before the season started and it was 50 wins for the Knicks that year. So they achieved what they should have.
Put it this way, to get back to that level by next year, we're going to have to find ways to get guys who should be making around $7 or 8 mil to come here for $1 to 3 mil.

If a guy has an ok WS48 (Novak .116 - 20 mpg) does that make him a "great" role player?

Obviously WS is not every thing but I used it as my alarm to take a deeper look. Often I don't see why the WS is low especially with guards.

Tyson always had a great WS but I could never stand him or his game. I am sure that bias plays into it as well.

We will def need production from cheap players to be successful though I don't even care about this year. I want a full rebuild.

I agree with part of Bonn's point. Im not sure the role players *were* better, but they sure as hell PLAYED better. Copeland and Novak have done nothing since leaving the guy (who doesnt make anyone better). But what Bonn is right about is nobody has stepped up. Thats what the Dallas trade was about. Calderon can set the ton Kidd set. Larkin will be a nice P&R PG off the bench. Early should give you quality minutes off the bench. Phil added some shooters and a floor general. Is he done? I suspect he's not...

That's the best imaginable scenario. You're talking about a 33 year old whose teams always do better when he's on the bench. Some of his advanced stats (including WS) look good but there are enough warning signs that I don't think you can forecast any significant improvement.

so if the win shares are bad its gospel. But if they are good you have to look at "other warning signs."

Calderon is here to create shots and hit open jumpers, the two things he excels at.

No, in both cases the win shares are an important *piece* to the puzzle. If they're good and *everything* else looks bad, I don't think the scale is tipping in a good direction though.
Even when he was in his prime in Toronto, the team's winning percentage was 100 points higher in the 60 games he missed than the games he played in, and he's slower and worse on defense now. The on/off plus minus looks bad and his opponent PER is always much better than his.
His win shares look good because he's a low mistake player - he rarely turns the ball over and shoots at a good level (but only low volume). That's definitely helpful but I think there's overwhelming evidence that it doesn't even erase what he does on the defensive end.

I mean... whats JR's win share in 2013 vs 2014?

Cmon.. if figuring out a guy's impact was as simple as looking at his win shares and assigning a $$$ value to that Phil wouldnt be getting $12mm a year.

StarksEwing1 wrote: To be fair fish you do seem to jump all over someone if they dotn agree with your opinion. I mean if someone is even a fraction critical of melo you go ape**** lol. Believe me i wish we could sign anyone without restrictions but unfortunetly in the cap world you need to limit the max contracts and focus on the draft. I mean look at the Spurs. they are a world class organization because they dotn overpay and they draft well. So far Phil has done a fantastic job. The Mavs trade was a steal and im lookign forward to the rest of his moves and next years draft

i disagree...there are some madmen out there throwing out statements like "two bad shoulders", ".450 player", etc.

I mean, i've had my historical battles with fish, but he's definitely not of the islefan or bonn proportions...i mean, Bonn definitely disagrees to disagree and when he's boxed in says "i'll wait and see".

I'm waiting until the decision to see where all the madness falls out.

The should melo stay or go poll has it overwhelmingly for him to stay (even with a haircut), so to still have the far reaching opinions that melo is a bum, when the rest of hte world sees melo as the second best available Free Agent (and we all know lebron isn't really available) is what is the most frustrating.

Should we all sit back and let our best player, one year removed from the scoring champion and 54 wins, be killed for asking for a raise?

fishmike wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:What do we get for keeping him? A .450 team with $30 mil less in cap space?

no you get the team you had 2 years ago, for starters

Only if you go out and grab 5 or 6 great role players, but we're in a much better situation if we do that regardless of what happens with Melo.

Who were our five/six "great" role players that year?

JR I guess and Kidd for part of the season. Who else?

Get ready for the great explanation of how we would have 2 or 3 chips by now (or at least be sitting on great cap space and yoots and draft picks) had we only stayed with Gallo, Wilson, Moz and AR. That's four! And the invisible great players we would have made with our tremendous draft expertise! There's 5 and 6!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The real issue is that we could have gotten him as a FA, used the players we traded for him in other ways, if we chose to, and have the picks we gave up to draft or trade.

Anthony squeezed us to make a trade and seriously reduced our ability to surround him with the best possible complimentary players back then, and by opting out, he is again squeezing the team and potentially threatening our ability to surround him with the best possible complimentary players.

Gallinari would have been a decent compliment to Anthony, and nobody can say if he would have been injured had he remained here. Mosgov would be an excellent backup center and spot starter if he had remained here, and who knows if Felton would have ballooned up and shown such a steep decline. I'm not a Felton fan, but he was having a career season when we traded him, and liked it here.

But none of this played out because we had to make the trade for Anthony and not compete for him as a FA.

If he returns it should be on terms that also help the team, not just him.

And you could guarantee that Melo doesn't end up in Brooklyn?
And Stat would not have ever gotten hurt and Shump would have injury free seasons and we draft incredibly well and Dolan sells the team, and Wilson Chandler would be on his fourth All-Star team and Lin would have been discovered earlier and...

Gallo was hurt when he was here. Moz has spent most of his time as a third string 5 until very recently and Felton came back here in better shape with a chip on his shoulder and was ranked last in the league as a PG. All that was going to magically disappear because Melo didn't come as a FA?

Please, how long does this go on?

Nothing is guaranteed. You don't, for the most part, make decisions based on injury potential, or expect injuries to happen. You want flexibility and the ability to take advantage of, but also create, opportunities. You want your team to control, to some degree, its destiny.

Anthony, to some degree, put shackles on the team because of the trade. We picked up some vets and got surprise performances from some players when we reached Rnd 2, but that roster was clearly not a "team on the rise" roster built on younger veterans with some youth we expected to progress.

With Anthony now playing the field (and having declared his intention to do so last year, or all things), I should be the one saying "how long does this go on?"

Jackson did a great job in the Dallas trade, getting rid of Felton and Chandler (who Dallas clearly values more than I do), picking up a serviceable PG, another young PG who might surprise people, and some picks we used to draft a couple of guys who just might make a difference in the future. He clearly took advantage of a situation with certain assets we possessed.

Giving Anthony a max contract sets the franchise back a step or to IMHO, and negates some of the momentum that was started after our recent trade.

tfk that you? So letting him walk for nothing? A HOF player in his prime moves the franchise FORWARD? I thought winning was a good thing.

If he pushes us into giving him a Max contract, after manipulating how we got him in the first place and taking the opt out option as soon as he could, then I do have issues with bringing him back.

If Phil believes Anthony is a piece to building a great team, I would like him back... but at a hometown discount. If he does go, I would prefer he go to Chicago because of the S&T possibilities.

If you think that Anthony has done everything the right way- forcing (basically) the original trade, playing half-speed for MDA, possibly having a part in the Lin fiasco, announcing he was going to explore FA well before he needed to do so, and saying he would take less than Max and possibly asking FOR the Max now, you should look at how you evaluate him as a player, person, and piece of a contending team.

Can he be part of a system offense that does not have a bunch of all-stars who don't feel the need to defer to him? Hope so.

Can he play at the 3 anymore (especially on D) and allow the team to have a more rugged PF who can add some interior D and length so we are not out rebounded on a nightly basis? Who knows.

If he does play at the 4 will his body continue to be banged up to the point where it affects his offense?

For the most part, I've been satisfied with him on the court, and I would want him back, especially if he buys into a system game and Phil is able to make some deals to clear cap space to we can get another high level player sooner rather than later, but at this point he is not the kind of player who can take a decent team and carry it on his back like he did at Syracuse.

Bonn1997 wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

babyKnicks wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote: To be fair fish you do seem to jump all over someone if they dotn agree with your opinion. I mean if someone is even a fraction critical of melo you go ape**** lol. Believe me i wish we could sign anyone without restrictions but unfortunetly in the cap world you need to limit the max contracts and focus on the draft. I mean look at the Spurs. they are a world class organization because they dotn overpay and they draft well. So far Phil has done a fantastic job. The Mavs trade was a steal and im lookign forward to the rest of his moves and next years draft

i disagree...there are some madmen out there throwing out statements like "two bad shoulders", ".450 player", etc.

I mean, i've had my historical battles with fish, but he's definitely not of the islefan or bonn proportions...i mean, Bonn definitely disagrees to disagree and when he's boxed in says "i'll wait and see".

I'm waiting until the decision to see where all the madness falls out.

The should melo stay or go poll has it overwhelmingly for him to stay (even with a haircut), so to still have the far reaching opinions that melo is a bum, when the rest of hte world sees melo as the second best available Free Agent (and we all know lebron isn't really available) is what is the most frustrating.

Should we all sit back and let our best player, one year removed from the scoring champion and 54 wins, be killed for asking for a raise?

First off i ignore posters who either have a agenda or like a player too much and are never critical. Bonn is a pretty fair fan he may not be a big melo fan but he is objective. I've said all along i wouldnt mind having melo back BUT he must take a decent paycut to help the team especially at his age, i mean he isnt 26/27 anymore. I've always been fair with melo he is a great scorer and a good rebounder for his position BUT he has hoels in other parts of the game taht you cant ignore and hanst had a successful playoff record either.

Thanks; I do like Melo though and would love to have him back at a Parker/Duncan/Ginobili even Harden salary but nowhere near what most people are talking about here. I think we're on the same page.

The only reason for signing him to the max is that barring major injury, he is a very tradeable asset. You don't seem to be considering this.

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:What do we get for keeping him? A .450 team with $30 mil less in cap space?

no you get the team you had 2 years ago, for starters

Only if you go out and grab 5 or 6 great role players, but we're in a much better situation if we do that regardless of what happens with Melo.

Who were our five/six "great" role players that year?

JR I guess and Kidd for part of the season. Who else?

Novak, Tyson, a younger Pablo, Copeland.
They were all at least good if not great role players. Tyson was an all-star (with a great WS) and the other guys all played far better than what their salaries were.

Tyson was not a "role" player.

Novak was Not good that year.

Copeland barely played for us and barely played anywhere else. Not that good.

Pablo? Great role player? C'mon man

Tyson: OK fine. I should have said 4 to 5 role players and 1 all-star. That only adds to my point about how much more we'd have to add just to get back to that level, though.
You seem to be selectively using and ignoring WS. If an average player makes $6 mil a season and has a win share of .100, if you can get a guy significantly above that (.110 to .130 range) for a third the price, isn't that outstanding? They're basically guys producing at what you'd expect to buy for around $8 or 9 mil a year.

My point is/was really that the knick team that year was a pretty bad team. How they won 54 games is beyond me. And you said that they had 4-5 "great" role players which I believe is far from the truth.

As far as WS, where have I used it selectively?

Pretty much in your description of everyone in this discussion. Do you think Novak, Copeland, and Pablo were pretty good and Tyson was an all-star that year or are you ignoring the WS?
I took the average of the predictions of all the advanced stats models before the season started and it was 50 wins for the Knicks that year. So they achieved what they should have.
Put it this way, to get back to that level by next year, we're going to have to find ways to get guys who should be making around $7 or 8 mil to come here for $1 to 3 mil.

If a guy has an ok WS48 (Novak .116 - 20 mpg) does that make him a "great" role player?

Obviously WS is not every thing but I used it as my alarm to take a deeper look. Often I don't see why the WS is low especially with guards.

Tyson always had a great WS but I could never stand him or his game. I am sure that bias plays into it as well.

We will def need production from cheap players to be successful though I don't even care about this year. I want a full rebuild.

I agree with part of Bonn's point. Im not sure the role players *were* better, but they sure as hell PLAYED better. Copeland and Novak have done nothing since leaving the guy (who doesnt make anyone better). But what Bonn is right about is nobody has stepped up. Thats what the Dallas trade was about. Calderon can set the ton Kidd set. Larkin will be a nice P&R PG off the bench. Early should give you quality minutes off the bench. Phil added some shooters and a floor general. Is he done? I suspect he's not...

That's the best imaginable scenario. You're talking about a 33 year old whose teams always do better when he's on the bench. Some of his advanced stats (including WS) look good but there are enough warning signs that I don't think you can forecast any significant improvement.

so if the win shares are bad its gospel. But if they are good you have to look at "other warning signs."

Calderon is here to create shots and hit open jumpers, the two things he excels at.

No, in both cases the win shares are an important *piece* to the puzzle. If they're good and *everything* else looks bad, I don't think the scale is tipping in a good direction though.
Even when he was in his prime in Toronto, the team's winning percentage was 100 points higher in the 60 games he missed than the games he played in, and he's slower and worse on defense now. The on/off plus minus looks bad and his opponent PER is always much better than his.
His win shares look good because he's a low mistake player - he rarely turns the ball over and shoots at a good level (but only low volume). That's definitely helpful but I think there's overwhelming evidence that it doesn't even erase what he does on the defensive end.

how do you evaluate players that way and pretend to know about the sport? I mean Im not taking a dig at you.. thats 100% NOT my intention. But thinking advanced stats tells you about how a player in one situation will play in another strikes me incredibily short sighted. Was Billups the same in Detroit as he was in the 3-4 teams he was with prior? Lowry? I mean we can find dozens of examples of guys who flourish or flop based on their surroundings. Calderon is a good rotation player. He does some things very very well like shoot, pass and take care of the ball. He does some things poorly like as well, namely things on the defensive side of the ball. Its the coach and GMs job to put them in a position to use their skills to win games.

I mean... whats JR's win share in 2013 vs 2014?

Cmon.. if figuring out a guy's impact was as simple as looking at his win shares and assigning a $$$ value to that Phil wouldnt be getting $12mm a year.

you should try real plus-minus as an advanced stat. it works for me for the most part.

may do absolute wonders for you.

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

babyKnicks wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote: To be fair fish you do seem to jump all over someone if they dotn agree with your opinion. I mean if someone is even a fraction critical of melo you go ape**** lol. Believe me i wish we could sign anyone without restrictions but unfortunetly in the cap world you need to limit the max contracts and focus on the draft. I mean look at the Spurs. they are a world class organization because they dotn overpay and they draft well. So far Phil has done a fantastic job. The Mavs trade was a steal and im lookign forward to the rest of his moves and next years draft

i disagree...there are some madmen out there throwing out statements like "two bad shoulders", ".450 player", etc.

I mean, i've had my historical battles with fish, but he's definitely not of the islefan or bonn proportions...i mean, Bonn definitely disagrees to disagree and when he's boxed in says "i'll wait and see".

I'm waiting until the decision to see where all the madness falls out.

The should melo stay or go poll has it overwhelmingly for him to stay (even with a haircut), so to still have the far reaching opinions that melo is a bum, when the rest of hte world sees melo as the second best available Free Agent (and we all know lebron isn't really available) is what is the most frustrating.

Should we all sit back and let our best player, one year removed from the scoring champion and 54 wins, be killed for asking for a raise?

First off i ignore posters who either have a agenda or like a player too much and are never critical. Bonn is a pretty fair fan he may not be a big melo fan but he is objective. I've said all along i wouldnt mind having melo back BUT he must take a decent paycut to help the team especially at his age, i mean he isnt 26/27 anymore. I've always been fair with melo he is a great scorer and a good rebounder for his position BUT he has hoels in other parts of the game taht you cant ignore and hanst had a successful playoff record either.

Thanks; I do like Melo though and would love to have him back at a Parker/Duncan/Ginobili even Harden salary but nowhere near what most people are talking about here. I think we're on the same page.

The only reason for signing him to the max is that barring major injury, he is a very tradeable asset. You don't seem to be considering this.

Teams never give out 5 year max contracts just to trade the player. That's a big gamble. Has a team ever done that? There are tons of examples of teams letting very good players walk rather than giving out bad contracts but I can't think of any teams doing what you're talking about. It's just too big a gamble. Assuming he steadily declines as most players with his wear and tear do and the team plays still at a disappointing level, I see his value diminishing.
It certainly *could* work out well if we're signing him just to trade him but it could also be a monumental disaster.

I agree that it is a risk but so is letting him walk for zilch. Sux to be a GM, no?

There is a reason why we offered him the max and I am sure that it is not because he is worth that to us but his value on the open market is extremely high.

As we have discussed before, the market sets the price even if that price includes stupidity.

I am sure that a big part of the reason that we retain him at any cost is resale value.

Regarding your last sentence, Phil was a great coach but I'm not starting with the premise that he does (or doesn't) know what he's doing as a GM. They're very different jobs.

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

babyKnicks wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote: To be fair fish you do seem to jump all over someone if they dotn agree with your opinion. I mean if someone is even a fraction critical of melo you go ape**** lol. Believe me i wish we could sign anyone without restrictions but unfortunetly in the cap world you need to limit the max contracts and focus on the draft. I mean look at the Spurs. they are a world class organization because they dotn overpay and they draft well. So far Phil has done a fantastic job. The Mavs trade was a steal and im lookign forward to the rest of his moves and next years draft

i disagree...there are some madmen out there throwing out statements like "two bad shoulders", ".450 player", etc.

I mean, i've had my historical battles with fish, but he's definitely not of the islefan or bonn proportions...i mean, Bonn definitely disagrees to disagree and when he's boxed in says "i'll wait and see".

I'm waiting until the decision to see where all the madness falls out.

The should melo stay or go poll has it overwhelmingly for him to stay (even with a haircut), so to still have the far reaching opinions that melo is a bum, when the rest of hte world sees melo as the second best available Free Agent (and we all know lebron isn't really available) is what is the most frustrating.

Should we all sit back and let our best player, one year removed from the scoring champion and 54 wins, be killed for asking for a raise?

First off i ignore posters who either have a agenda or like a player too much and are never critical. Bonn is a pretty fair fan he may not be a big melo fan but he is objective. I've said all along i wouldnt mind having melo back BUT he must take a decent paycut to help the team especially at his age, i mean he isnt 26/27 anymore. I've always been fair with melo he is a great scorer and a good rebounder for his position BUT he has hoels in other parts of the game taht you cant ignore and hanst had a successful playoff record either.

Thanks; I do like Melo though and would love to have him back at a Parker/Duncan/Ginobili even Harden salary but nowhere near what most people are talking about here. I think we're on the same page.

The only reason for signing him to the max is that barring major injury, he is a very tradeable asset. You don't seem to be considering this.

Teams never give out 5 year max contracts just to trade the player. That's a big gamble. Has a team ever done that? There are tons of examples of teams letting very good players walk rather than giving out bad contracts but I can't think of any teams doing what you're talking about. It's just too big a gamble. Assuming he steadily declines as most players with his wear and tear do and the team plays still at a disappointing level, I see his value diminishing.
It certainly *could* work out well if we're signing him just to trade him but it could also be a monumental disaster.

I agree that it is a risk but so is letting him walk for zilch. Sux to be a GM, no?

There is a reason why we offered him the max and I am sure that it is not because he is worth that to us but his value on the open market is extremely high.

As we have discussed before, the market sets the price even if that price includes stupidity.

I am sure that a big part of the reason that we retain him at any cost is resale value.

Yeah, they're both risks but they're not comparable risks - him walking and us having a blank slate in a year vs. us being screwed until 2020? We should have traded him during the season when we had all the leverage. Now the best thing you can do is butter him up ("we're grateful for everything you've done the past 4 years") and encourage him to cooperate in an S & T. I'm sure he too would prefer an S & T over signing elsewhere and it doesn't carry the risk that a 5 year max deal does.

Regarding your last sentence, Phil was a great coach but I'm not starting with the premise that he does (or doesn't) know what he's doing as a GM. They're very different jobs.

Of course we should have traded him during the season, it was moronic that we didn't. What the heck was the plan there? His value was at an all time high. Its always that the trades that we did not do are the ones that we should have, not stupid Bargs!!

And yes, we should hope for a good S&T but I don't think that letting him walk for nothing is a good idea. I think that we bite the bullet and give him the max (if he does not do the smart thing and take less) and then we trade him next season. Chances are that his value will just as high and teams will be willing to give a way more in a playoff race.

So again, the point of contention is not what his actual worth is but what he can bring us in a trade and what he is worth to other teams.

I am sure that many teams have sign players knowing that the player will/may have significant trade value.