|
franco12
Posts: 34069
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 2/19/2004
Member: #599
USA
|
Posted by Marv:
Posted by franco12:
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by Knicksfan:
Posted by franco12:
Posted by Knicksfan:
Posted by Bippity10:
23 wins
33 wins
23 wins
33 games into the next regime's tenure we already have fans calling them idiots and ready to abandon ship on their "stupid plans". We ran hall of famers out of town so why should Mike be any different? Did anyone really expect us to go from 23 wins to 38-45 wins? What were you expecting. We keep saying that we should beat teams like the Timberwolves and the Thunder etc. Idiots! We are the Timberwolves and the Thunder. The sooner you get that in your head, the sooner you will be at peace with what is going on. No coach is coming in here and winning right away. It's going to take time.
Maybe I was wrong, maybe you can't rebuild in NY.
Completely agree with this post, especially with the bold part. We aren't a mediocre team anymore. We were that with Craw and Zach, but now we are completely in rebuilding mode. Our veterans are just salary dumps. Our youngsters are either keepers or pieces of trades. Anyone else is just on their way out as soon as we can find a trading partner.
How can anyone be truly disappointed with the season in terms of winning? This wasn't the point of the season and we knew it. If you didn't, once we made the trades it was over. No playoffs nor a lot of wins. We are rebuilding with a huge date to come: 2010. We'll see what happens once there.
Meanwhile, Knicks, compete but lose. Whats the point of winning games when you are losing the biggest prize you can get: a better lottery pick.
Actually- I totally disagree with this! We are bad like the Thunder & T Wolves, but we don't have anywhere near the hope and promise in terms of young talent on the roster. And they are both well positioned in terms of the NBA Draft this year, as opposed to us who are heading for a selection in the 10-12 range and we lose what is also likely to be a mid lotto pick in 2010.
And, maybe if we had found some player from the NBDL/unproven arena better than Robersuck- maybe someone like Anthony Morrow, I could say we're trying to rebuild.
Maybe we'll get two superstar FAs in 2010. Even that is no guarantee as there is no supporting cast. And more than likely, all the big names will stay put and we'll be forced to overpay for 2nd tier talent, and we'll be looking at a team with a ceiling of mid 40 wins.
And yes, both the T Wolves and Thunder might still be bottom of the barrel, but just as likely they will develop and begin to turn the corner, and ascend much like the Trailblazers are right now.
Every team needs to take a first step at some point, and the talent you had before starting the rebuilding will surely help you. In case of the T-Wolves, they had a guy named Garnett that got them nice talent in return. And all of those teams accepted the fact that they sucked and tried to make the best of it stockpiling talent, while the Knicks simply never accepted it and always tried to foolishly re-tool.
You know what would really upset me? That the next Walsh deal will be to get immediate help instead of future pieces. Things could've been different id Mobley had played, but he didn't and the Knicks are a mess. Fine, just get draft picks, young players and focus on 2009, when we should do everything to have a solid core in the team. Who cares if we get a player to help us win more games now, if the best is to get the best position in the lottery?
The Knicks are as the T-Wolves and Thunder in terms of stinking. If they make the right moves, they could have a nice core of young players like them soon.
Agreed. The reason we don't have an abundance of young future cornerstones is because for 8 years after Patrick left we pretended that you can lose a franchise player and not have to rebuild. We finally have taken a step forward. We cleared cap space. Next target should be the youth. Let's hope Gallinari can make it back and be healthy and work towards the next set of draft picks.
If we are rebuilding and looking to get youth, why didn't we trade Crawford for a first rounder? Unlike Zach, I have to imagine we could have gotten a filler and future first rounder from a contending team for Crawford. Instead, we got back Harrington because he expires in 2010 but also helps us out now.
Helps us do what, win 29 games? Move back in the lotto?
If Walsh is serious about rebuilding, then I think he should trade Nate for a first rounder from a contender, and trade Lee to get back 2 first rounders. I don't care if they are late picks- just get picks because you can bundle picks and move up.
We're not really rebuilding because we're still trying to win games. And yes, you have to win games, but at some point, your emphasis shifts to the long term, and not the short term.
We got a new chef, but they are still serving dog
maybe every other gm in the league also realized crawfoard is a crfappy career loser and didn't want to give up a first-rouinder for him. notice how we got back another playaer who was unwanted by his team?
Yea- but Walsh also got back one of his players that fits D'Antoni's free flowing chuck style. And nothing wrong with getting him.
Just honestly, I can't believe we couldn't find a contender that wouldn't give up a late first rounder & filler for a player like Crawford who can come off the bench and sometimes give you 50 pts. New Orleans, San Anonio, Cleveland, Boston? Crawford's contract isn't that big that you couldn't move him, and a team trading for him could hope, if they wanted, that he might exercise his PO & they could just rent him short term. |
1/8/2009 9:57 AM
