[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

This Team Will Not Make The Playoffs
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 4 of 4 « First‹ Previous 2  3  4 
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
3/1/2007  5:45 PM
Posted by bitty41:

But don't they have a much more room to make a deal. Through trades and draft picks. But basically Boston is paying 3 guys Theo, Wally, and Pierce those 3 are hell of easier to move than Jerome James, Jared Jefferies, and Steve Francis.

being capped out is being capped out... they don't have any more room to make deals than we do... they have some young tradeable players just like the Knicks... the 1 asset they have that the Knicks don't is a top 5 draft pick... like i pointed out in my scenario above, they can use it to take a Kevin Durant or Joakim Noah type player, but that doesn't make them all of a sudden so balanced of a team... it will still take them years to grow into a good team... assuming that they're so much better off than the Knicks are at this point is a wild guess at best... Danny Ainge is 1 of a few other GM's in the NBA that can compare w/Isiah in their ineptitude in rebuilding their franchise.

& a player like Wally Z is more tradeable than Francis, i'll give u that, but there aren't teams lining up to grab themselves a guy who makes more than $11 mil annually over the next 2 seasons that's coming off a major injury either... & you want to use their best player Pierce as an example of a tradeable player they have while pointing out the Knicks' worst players in Jefferies & Turd? you can't be serious... don't you think if the Celtics do decide to trade Pierce, that they'll end up getting a lottery pick & some ending contracts that will just further the wait period for Celtic fans in their rebuild phase? how does that help that team reach success quicker than the Knicks?
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
AUTOADVERT
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
3/1/2007  6:04 PM
Posted by TMS:
Posted by bitty41:

But don't they have a much more room to make a deal. Through trades and draft picks. But basically Boston is paying 3 guys Theo, Wally, and Pierce those 3 are hell of easier to move than Jerome James, Jared Jefferies, and Steve Francis.

being capped out is being capped out... they don't have any more room to make deals than we do... they have some young tradeable players just like the Knicks... the 1 asset they have that the Knicks don't is a top 5 draft pick... like i pointed out in my scenario above, they can use it to take a Kevin Durant or Joakim Noah type player, but that doesn't make them all of a sudden so balanced of a team... it will still take them years to grow into a good team... assuming that they're so much better off than the Knicks are at this point is a wild guess at best... Danny Ainge is 1 of a few other GM's in the NBA that can compare w/Isiah in their ineptitude in rebuilding their franchise.

& a player like Wally Z is more tradeable than Francis, i'll give u that, but there aren't teams lining up to grab themselves a guy who makes more than $11 mil annually over the next 2 seasons that's coming off a major injury either... & you want to use their best player Pierce as an example of a tradeable player they have while pointing out the Knicks' worst players in Jefferies & Turd? you can't be serious... don't you think if the Celtics do decide to trade Pierce, that they'll end up getting a lottery pick & some ending contracts that will just further the wait period for Celtic fans in their rebuild phase? how does that help that team reach success quicker than the Knicks?

I agree that Ainge is just as bad a GM as Isiah he's made a complete mess out the Celtics organization. But if the Celtics can even get rid of Wally Z for draft picks or future draft picks they will be right at 50 million. Which is significantly better than being at 86 mill guranteed. Like I said if they draft a stud this year you don't think that could turn the organization around not saying Championship but they could possibly win 20 more games next year. Especially if Gerald Green realizes his potential, Al Jefferson continues to get better, Rajon Rondo becomes more confident in his shot, and Paul Pierce stays healthy. Think about it in this regard for about 50 games none of the Knicks major contributors, Lee, Marbury, Crawford, and Curry missed more than 2 games and they still were under .500. The question is what you consider the ceiling for these guys. Is Curry capable of being a defensive force ever, is Lee capable of becoming a two-way forward that can defend the outside and develop some sort of jumper, Marbury (I think he's past his prime), and Crawford will he ever learn to play with his brain? This all of course with no high draft pick.
SlimPack
Posts: 23588
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/14/2005
Member: #1009
USA
3/1/2007  6:19 PM
Posted by TMS:



Slim, please explain to me how i'm way off base on that assumption that it takes several years for a completely reconstructed team of young talent to gel... what historical examples do you have to draw from where a GM completely tore down the franchise, built it back up w/young talent, & then got them to be a contender again in the span of less than 6-7 years?

[Edited by - TMS on 03-01-2007 5:35 PM]

Well from a technical stand point an example of where a GM COMPETELY tears down a franchise and builds it up would have no bearing on our situation anyway because Isiah never did a tradition rebuild. He tried to rebuild and win now at the same time. also you kind of changed up the question on me didn't you? I said you were off base if you think it takes 6-7 years to for a team to develop chemsitry with each other, I never said that it shouldn't take that long for a team to rebuild from scatch in championship contenders. that's a different scenario. I could understand it taking that long to go from scratch (which remember Isiah never did anyway) to being championship contenders. But it by no means takes that long to develop chemistry.

anyway do you really need me to give you an example where it took less than 6-7 years for a new team to develop chemsitry with each other? isn't it common knowledge that it doesn't take that long? I'm sure if you thought about it you can come up with a bunch of examples yourself. (hint: a good place to start might be the raptors).
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
3/1/2007  6:36 PM
Is Curry capable of being a defensive force ever

it's obvious he will never be a defensive force... i don't believe that's what it's going to take for this franchise to improve necessarily... Eddy's low post scoring does have good value to this franchise... like i've said many times, bring in a shotblocker to play alongside him & enforce the paint... bring in a perimeter shooter to make teams pay for doubling Eddy down low... if you build a team w/complementary parts you can see some marked improvement... the Celtics don't have any more complimentary parts than the Knicks do at this point... they're still a long ways away from being a contender... no body knows how their draft pick will turn out to be either... they may draft the next superstar, or he might turn out to be a bust... people thought not having a top 3 pick would doom this franchise for years at last year's draft... i don't believe having Ty Thomas or Adam Morrison would propell this franchise to being a contender any quicker than we would be right now w/Curry personally... i know people will disagree w/me on that one, but we'll just have to agree to disagree... i felt the trade was a good one as long as the Bulls didn't get Oden, & i still feel that way... as it stands now, i think Isiah can still nab himself a good player w/CHI's pick in the 20's that can turn out to be a better player in the long run that whoever CHI takes w/the Knicks' pick this year... it's a deep draft & there will be some good players available when the Knicks pick, so losing those swap rights isn't as horrible in my mind as some of the rest of you think it is.
is Lee capable of becoming a two-way forward that can defend the outside and develop some sort of jumper

absolutely... i think D Lee is going to be an Allstar PF in 2 years' time... he's got the work ethic, the basketball IQ, the athletic ability & the instincts to become a great player in this league... Isiah really made a great pick when he took him... that has to be his best move ever as a Knicks' GM.
Marbury (I think he's past his prime)

he definitely is, but he's not as past his prime as i thought he was at the beginning of the season... he still looks like he's got the explosion in his step, but his knees & ankle ailments this season have slowed him down a little as the season wore on... 1 thing i do know is he's playing the best defense he's ever played in his career, which was a big shock to me.
and Crawford will he ever learn to play with his brain?

i really believe he needs to be given the role to be the orchestrator for this team... that's what he's best suited to IMO... that won't happen until Marbury is off this team... i think when Steph's contract comes off the books, barring any extension obviously, then Jamal can become a star as a starting PG... he'll still be only 28 years old with a whole lot less mileage on his legs than Marbury had at the same age... that's right in his prime years... hopefully he can come back from this stress fracture fully recovered.


my simple point is, you can't assume all these bright things in store for a team like Boston in its future & have such a pessimistic view for the Knicks at the same time... look at that Celtics team right now, they're pitiful... they're even worse than the Knicks were last year... that right there should tell you something... it's going to be several years before they're a good team again IMO, regardless of who they get in this year's draft unless, like i said, they're able to get Oden.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
3/1/2007  7:18 PM
Posted by SlimPack:

you kind of changed up the question on me didn't you? I said you were off base if you think it takes 6-7 years to for a team to develop chemsitry with each other, I never said that it shouldn't take that long for a team to rebuild from scatch in championship contenders. that's a different scenario.

i didn't change anything around, you didn't read my post the way i wrote it... i didn't say it takes 6-7 years for any team to develop chemistry... i was talking about a complete rebuild like Ainge decided to undergo w/the Celtics before last season... Boston basically tore down their franchise & started to build back up again from scratch... so let's say they get Durant in this year's draft... so when do you think the Celtics will be a contender again? they've been 1 of the worst NBA teams this year & last... so you think they'll be contenders again in the next 3 years guaranteed w/this young core? sorry, i just don't see it... unless they make moves to trade these young players for veteran star players, it's going to take them 4-5 more years minimum to get back to being contenders again (6-7 year total rebuild time), & even that's being generous IMO... plus, Pierce isn't going to be a stud for many more years either, so you have to take that into consideration also.
anyway do you really need me to give you an example where it took less than 6-7 years for a new team to develop chemsitry with each other? isn't it common knowledge that it doesn't take that long? I'm sure if you thought about it you can come up with a bunch of examples yourself. (hint: a good place to start might be the raptors).

Babc*ck, Embry & Colangelo have done a terrific job of rebuilding that franchise, i'll give you that... but look at some of the other teams around the league that have languished in mediocrity or been bottomdwellers for several years in recent memory:

ATL - past 7 years in a row they've been 1 of the worst teams in the NBA
LAC - took them 13 years after the '93 season to get back to .500
VAN - horrible team for 8 yrs before finally reaching the playoffs in '04
CHI - took them 7 years after the dynasty was broken up to get back to the playoffs
GS - no playoffs for 13 years running
NO - no playoffs in 3 years & this year will be the 4th

you'll notice that the raptors' example is a rarity in the NBA... usually completely rebuilding a franchise is not the formula to find quick & immediate success in the NBA, & even then there are never any guarantees the rebuild will work... some teams have rebuilt just to tear it down & do it all over again (as in the case of the Bulls for example)... it takes years to get all the parts starting from scratch & for those parts to gel into a cohesive unit normally in the NBA.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
SlimPack
Posts: 23588
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/14/2005
Member: #1009
USA
3/1/2007  7:44 PM
It might take 1 at the absolute most 2 years for a team to gel but that would be it. the teams you listed were bad for a long time because they had bad management. not because of the particular route they took to building a team or because that's how long it takes to develop chemistry.

anyway the point I was making is it doesnt take long to form chemsitry, the raptors example isnt rare. the suns developed chemistry instantaneously after nash was signed. the sixers have good chemsitry right now and that team has only been together for a couple of months since iverson was traded.

as for the bulls that 7 year rebuilding span you refer to was actually roughly two rebuilding attempts. It's possible that the Elton Brand, Brad Miller and Ron Artest lead Bulls had good chemistry with each other too but I don't remember. all I know is it only took John Paxson 2 seasons to get rid of kruase's mistakes and make a NEW team that had developed great chemsitry with each other as far back as 2 years ago when they first made the playoffs (which was only the second season after Paxson was hired). and for the record it took some signifant additions for that chemsitry to be formed its not as though the same players "developed" chemistry with themselves like you seem to be hoping that this group of knicks player will do. anyway the overall point I'm trying to make here is, generally speaking chemistry is either something a team has or it doesn't have. you don't develop chemistry that was missing after 2 seasons all of a sudden in the third with the same core group of players.

anyway as for the other point you seem to be making about how long it takes for a team to start from scratch and become contenders again, (a point that for the record I never challenged, this whole thing started with me responding to this post of yours
Posted by TMS:




... it took the Bulls several years for that young core to finally show some signs of life... you have to expect it will take the Knicks' young players a similar amount of time to gel as well & the Celtics even younger squad longer than that

)


umm........ I dunno it depends on how lucky the franchise gets and how good of a job the GM does. as for the celtics, I think it's possible for them to be contenders in 3 or so seasons from now, but it depends on alot of factors. on average depending on how lucky you get, I think it takes an average of 5-7 years to start from scratch and become contenders. I think anyway..........
not that that has anything to do with the knicks who never did start from scratch.



[Edited by - slimpack on 03-01-2007 7:51 PM]
joec32033
Posts: 30641
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 2/3/2004
Member: #583
USA
3/2/2007  12:10 AM
Posted by BlueSeats:
Posted by MS:


Seriously whats going to happen to make us better?



Lee, Frye, Nate and Balkman will come into camp younger and more athletic?

huh?
~You can't run from who you are.~
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
3/2/2007  9:27 AM
Posted by SlimPack:

It might take 1 at the absolute most 2 years for a team to gel but that would be it. the teams you listed were bad for a long time because they had bad management.

whereas the Knicks don't have bad management... gotcha
anyway the point I was making is it doesnt take long to form chemsitry, the raptors example isnt rare. the suns developed chemistry instantaneously after nash was signed. the sixers have good chemsitry right now and that team has only been together for a couple of months since iverson was traded.

dude, i am NOT talking about veteran teams forming chemistry... how many times do i have to say that? the Suns? that team was already a playoff contender w/Marbury there... Nash added the dimension they needed, which was a leader... that's a completely different scenario.
as for the bulls that 7 year rebuilding span you refer to was actually roughly two rebuilding attempts. It's possible that the Elton Brand, Brad Miller and Ron Artest lead Bulls had good chemistry with each other too but I don't remember. all I know is it only took John Paxson 2 seasons to get rid of kruase's mistakes and make a NEW team that had developed great chemsitry with each other as far back as 2 years ago when they first made the playoffs (which was only the second season after Paxson was hired). and for the record it took some signifant additions for that chemsitry to be formed its not as though the same players "developed" chemistry with themselves like you seem to be hoping that this group of knicks player will do. anyway the overall point I'm trying to make here is, generally speaking chemistry is either something a team has or it doesn't have. you don't develop chemistry that was missing after 2 seasons all of a sudden in the third with the same core group of players.

it's possible that team could have made the playoffs, but the fact is they didn't... that team was torn down & bebuilt back up & nothing was there to show for it, so they had to do it all over again (as i pointed out in my last post)... Krause, the same inept GM that put together that dynasty team was to blame for that one... so like i said again, breaking down a team & building back up again is not a quick fix means of creating a contender... that is the route Ainge is taking w/the Celtics, & THAT'S the point i'm making here... it's going to take that team at least another 3-4 years to get back to contention at the bare minimum IMO, & counting the last 2 seasons where Ainge has been pretty much undergoing that rebuilding process, that makes it about 6 years in total... 6-7 years is an arbitrary figure, but the basic point is it takes several years to get a team to contend again after completely tearing it down that way.
anyway as for the other point you seem to be making about how long it takes for a team to start from scratch and become contenders again, (a point that for the record I never challenged, this whole thing started with me responding to this post of yours
Posted by TMS:




... it took the Bulls several years for that young core to finally show some signs of life... you have to expect it will take the Knicks' young players a similar amount of time to gel as well & the Celtics even younger squad longer than that

do you get the point now or do i have to make those words a little larger to get the message across?
as for the celtics, I think it's possible for them to be contenders in 3 or so seasons from now, but it depends on alot of factors. on average depending on how lucky you get, I think it takes an average of 5-7 years to start from scratch and become contenders. I think anyway..........
not that that has anything to do with the knicks who never did start from scratch.

dude, i was talking about the Celtics & Ainge's rebuild... if you agree w/me what are you even debating w/me about?

[Edited by - TMS on 03-02-2007 09:33 AM]
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
3/2/2007  9:29 AM
Posted by joec32033:
Posted by BlueSeats:
Posted by MS:


Seriously whats going to happen to make us better?



Lee, Frye, Nate and Balkman will come into camp younger and more athletic?

huh?

And taller!
BlueSeats
Posts: 27272
Alba Posts: 41
Joined: 11/6/2005
Member: #1024
3/2/2007  11:09 AM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by joec32033:
Posted by BlueSeats:
Posted by MS:


Seriously whats going to happen to make us better?



Lee, Frye, Nate and Balkman will come into camp younger and more athletic?

huh?

And taller!

Thank you. At least my humor flies in Canada.
TrueBlue
Posts: 29144
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 9/20/2006
Member: #1172
4/13/2007  10:00 PM
Alright how many fans do I have to console tonight?
LMFAO @ the Bio [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephon_Marbury[/url]
GhandiOrr
Posts: 20178
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 12/22/2006
Member: #1229
4/13/2007  10:10 PM

"You shall play basketball and you shall play it great."
GhandiOrr
Posts: 20178
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 12/22/2006
Member: #1229
4/13/2007  10:11 PM
^^^^that was me being too depressed to speak
"You shall play basketball and you shall play it great."
TrueBlue
Posts: 29144
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 9/20/2006
Member: #1172
4/13/2007  10:13 PM
Posted by GhandiOrr:

^^^^that was me being too depressed to speak

I said this back on 2-25-07. Actually before the season even started because I had them at 33wins. I feel like I may hit the Lotto on this one.

[Edited by - TrueBlue on 04-13-2007 9:13 PM]
LMFAO @ the Bio [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephon_Marbury[/url]
GhandiOrr
Posts: 20178
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 12/22/2006
Member: #1229
4/13/2007  10:28 PM
Posted by TrueBlue:
Posted by GhandiOrr:

^^^^that was me being too depressed to speak

I said this back on 2-25-07. Actually before the season even started because I had them at 33wins. I feel like I may hit the Lotto on this one.

[Edited by - TrueBlue on 04-13-2007 9:13 PM]

see, I can't make realistic predictions at all. I close my eyes and I see Bynum as a Knick, Lamarcus Aldridge as a Knick, and Jeff Green as a soon to be Knick. I'm just in total denial over here.
"You shall play basketball and you shall play it great."
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
4/13/2007  10:35 PM
really no one should have expected this team to make the playoffs this year... they're still clearly missing some key parts to make them a legitimate playoff contender... it was pretty evident from before the season even began as i've said all along.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
SlimPack
Posts: 23588
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/14/2005
Member: #1009
USA
4/13/2007  11:05 PM
Posted by TMS:
Posted by SlimPack:

It might take 1 at the absolute most 2 years for a team to gel but that would be it. the teams you listed were bad for a long time because they had bad management.

whereas the Knicks don't have bad management... gotcha
anyway the point I was making is it doesnt take long to form chemsitry, the raptors example isnt rare. the suns developed chemistry instantaneously after nash was signed. the sixers have good chemsitry right now and that team has only been together for a couple of months since iverson was traded.

dude, i am NOT talking about veteran teams forming chemistry... how many times do i have to say that? the Suns? that team was already a playoff contender w/Marbury there... Nash added the dimension they needed, which was a leader... that's a completely different scenario.
as for the bulls that 7 year rebuilding span you refer to was actually roughly two rebuilding attempts. It's possible that the Elton Brand, Brad Miller and Ron Artest lead Bulls had good chemistry with each other too but I don't remember. all I know is it only took John Paxson 2 seasons to get rid of kruase's mistakes and make a NEW team that had developed great chemsitry with each other as far back as 2 years ago when they first made the playoffs (which was only the second season after Paxson was hired). and for the record it took some signifant additions for that chemsitry to be formed its not as though the same players "developed" chemistry with themselves like you seem to be hoping that this group of knicks player will do. anyway the overall point I'm trying to make here is, generally speaking chemistry is either something a team has or it doesn't have. you don't develop chemistry that was missing after 2 seasons all of a sudden in the third with the same core group of players.

it's possible that team could have made the playoffs, but the fact is they didn't... that team was torn down & bebuilt back up & nothing was there to show for it, so they had to do it all over again (as i pointed out in my last post)... Krause, the same inept GM that put together that dynasty team was to blame for that one... so like i said again, breaking down a team & building back up again is not a quick fix means of creating a contender... that is the route Ainge is taking w/the Celtics, & THAT'S the point i'm making here... it's going to take that team at least another 3-4 years to get back to contention at the bare minimum IMO, & counting the last 2 seasons where Ainge has been pretty much undergoing that rebuilding process, that makes it about 6 years in total... 6-7 years is an arbitrary figure, but the basic point is it takes several years to get a team to contend again after completely tearing it down that way.
anyway as for the other point you seem to be making about how long it takes for a team to start from scratch and become contenders again, (a point that for the record I never challenged, this whole thing started with me responding to this post of yours
Posted by TMS:




... it took the Bulls several years for that young core to finally show some signs of life... you have to expect it will take the Knicks' young players a similar amount of time to gel as well & the Celtics even younger squad longer than that

do you get the point now or do i have to make those words a little larger to get the message across?
as for the celtics, I think it's possible for them to be contenders in 3 or so seasons from now, but it depends on alot of factors. on average depending on how lucky you get, I think it takes an average of 5-7 years to start from scratch and become contenders. I think anyway..........
not that that has anything to do with the knicks who never did start from scratch.

dude, i was talking about the Celtics & Ainge's rebuild... if you agree w/me what are you even debating w/me about?

[Edited by - TMS on 03-02-2007 09:33 AM]

I never knew you responded to my last post in this thread. Oh well Im certainly not going to respond to it now. why? because I Choose Not to Argue!
Page 4 of 4 « First‹ Previous 2  3  4 
« Reply To Topic
This Team Will Not Make The Playoffs
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy