TripleThreat wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Im just trying to get a consensus of what people think we should do. You can add more or less--take 35mm to spend if need be but include 5mm of that for the top draft pick.
Both you and RonRon have both jabbed at me saying that I don't posit solutions because I don't discuss exhaustive lists of free agents and draft targets when the Jimmy Butler and Wes Matthews injuries are proof positive of what I was saying before, that its IMHO too early to talk about targets in a realistic manner. Draft picks need to go through interviews and workouts and digging into their backgrounds and such. NBA players, many of these prospective free agents will raise or drop their stock with playoff performances. Some like Matthews just hit the wrong place/wrong time scenario just now.
The only thing clear to me with regards to free agency is that free agents will desire
1) To find a situation that allows them a chance to win/contend and get paid the most as the most desirable option
2) Barring that, most players will end up with the team that simply pays them the most. This may not be true to players who are veterans who have already amassed 2-3 contracts already in their career, who might go to a winning team if there was a choice, but overwhelmingly if you can't get a team that will win to pay you the most, you end up in a place that will pay you the most.
3) Overpays only work with odds in your favor if you are the only overpay option. If the Knicks and another team are both willing to overpay, I don't see the Knicks winning out in a pure wash for said Player X.
I used to work with a woman who would always talk about flaws in the men around her that she was interested in but wouldn't say she was interested in them. She'd say "No, I wouldn't date him or marry that kind of guy because of Issue X or Issue Y" IMHO, the truth was no man she was interested in actually wanted her in that way. She was a good worker, a good coworker, but she was simply undesirable for most men as a mate candidate.
When Phil Jackson says he doesn't want to blow all his free agent money on one player or one direction, and would rather spread it out piecemeal, a guy like nixluva will act like it's a full blown choice. Like the Knicks and Jackson could get anyone that they wanted but it's part of the "plan" or "design" in place. The reality is Tier 1 free agents aren't likely coming to the Knicks. It's easier to say "Our team doesn't want you, you don't fit into our plans" instead of just admitting that those free agents want nothing to do with a dysfunctional franchise with a lunatic owner, a geriatric team president and first time GM, a first time coach and a franchise player who a selfish shotjacking narcissist. And a lot of Tier 2 guys might have multiple options, where the Knicks aren't likely to get them in a "wash" situation.
Here's the hard cold bitter truth. The Knicks are like that ugly girl who says I don't want instead of realizing that a good portion of the options out there aren't really option at all. It's easier to say I don't want instead of I can't get.
The Knicks best chance are with Tier 3 and Tier 4 guys, guys other teams aren't fighting over because they are cherry picking the top selections in the pool and are more desirable situations besides an overpay.
You can't put lipstick on a pig.
I'm not saying the Knicks will be a pig forever. But I think folks have to recalibrate outside of their own homerism and fandom and try to see the franchise how an outsider might see it. This is a very dysfunctional franchise moving in a better direction ( can you go anywhere but up from here) but not IMHO the right direction.
Well you're right--everything is premature--but what else do you talk about when you are 12-48? You talk about different scenarios of the future. What exactly do we say for the present?
