rvwink wrote:Todays NY Times article on DeJuan was interesting. They didn't have any significant needs in their lineup and specifically had plenty of quality front court players on hand. Also the fact that he was a 2nd round pick was important because the generous contract that Blair signed was 2.3 million guaranteed over 4 years plus some incentives if he did well.

Because they are not trying to maximize their short term play, the Knicks situation is radically different. To help in their pursuit of Lebron next summer, improvements to the Knicks current lineup through the draft were critical. Having already drafted Hill at 8, and needing a back up point guard, the back court was where they were going. Also because they were not playing with a cheap second round pick, taking a chance on someone that was injury prone made no sense at all. The Knicks paid $3 million for the pick, and Toney's 2 year deal cost them almost $2 million, the Knicks needed the highest possible chance for success that they could find for the $5 million they were investing in this player.

I simply don't understand what the people who think DeJuan Blair should have been the Knicks 29th pick were dreaming about. The Knicks simply couldn't afford the downside risk that goes with a player without ACLs. Then risk number two is expecting a player that stands 6'5" and can't jump to succeed primarily as a rebounder.

The article answers your own question--->The Spur's criteria in choosing Blair was they they thought he was the only player still on the board who might be able to help him win a championship.

While we were not contending for a championship we could have been vying for a playoff spot---why wouldnt I want a player the Spurs[lets face it a top 3 NBA franchise known for its late round draft picks] said was the only guy they felt could help them? If I feel the same way as Spurs management--than I feel pretty good about thinking that way.

The Knicks seem to pick guys who are intriguing because they can do something well, but its usually not the thing that you really need from that position and we end up with a mishmosh of players on the floor all the time that get their doors blown off.

Just draft solid players for gods sake that can do anything you might need them to do at their position. Mardy Collins was a solid pick like that until he messed up his knee. Ariza was a solid pick like that until Brown shipped him out.

You'd think Hill would be a solid pick, but he doesn't look like he can jump and Mike says he's the worst defender on the team and they want to play him at center which is awesome...

What's wrong with Derozan there? What's wrong with Jennings there? What's wrong with Holiday there?

Jeeze, I'd love to be a fly in the wall in the Knicks draft room.

"OK, Golden State took Curry. Please stop crying everyone, there's still good players on the board.
We've got DeRozan, he's a freshman, really came on late in the year, is 6'8" can fly and shoot the three, we've got Jennings, Calhoun liked him, anyone got a scouting report on him? No? OK, well Chad Ford liked Hill a few weeks ago, so let's go with him."

martin wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

rvwink wrote:Todays NY Times article on DeJuan was interesting. They didn't have any significant needs in their lineup and specifically had plenty of quality front court players on hand. Also the fact that he was a 2nd round pick was important because the generous contract that Blair signed was 2.3 million guaranteed over 4 years plus some incentives if he did well.

Because they are not trying to maximize their short term play, the Knicks situation is radically different. To help in their pursuit of Lebron next summer, improvements to the Knicks current lineup through the draft were critical. Having already drafted Hill at 8, and needing a back up point guard, the back court was where they were going. Also because they were not playing with a cheap second round pick, taking a chance on someone that was injury prone made no sense at all. The Knicks paid $3 million for the pick, and Toney's 2 year deal cost them almost $2 million, the Knicks needed the highest possible chance for success that they could find for the $5 million they were investing in this player.

I simply don't understand what the people who think DeJuan Blair should have been the Knicks 29th pick were dreaming about. The Knicks simply couldn't afford the downside risk that goes with a player without ACLs. Then risk number two is expecting a player that stands 6'5" and can't jump to succeed primarily as a rebounder.

The article answers your own question--->The Spur's criteria in choosing Blair was they they thought he was the only player still on the board who might be able to help him win a championship.

While we were not contending for a championship we could have been vying for a playoff spot---why wouldnt I want a player the Spurs[lets face it a top 3 NBA franchise known for its late round draft picks] said was the only guy they felt could help them? If I feel the same way as Spurs management--than I feel pretty good about thinking that way.

Spurs run a half court offense that is a slow down thing. They also have Duncan as a big. Put Blair with that and it make sense.

Knicks want to run and spread the floor and have their 4 be able to spread the D. And the just drafted Gallo. What's the fit?

Like I mentioned--I just view Blair as a guy like a Pail Millsap Like a Carl Landry--an undersized big with good size and quickness who can come off the bench with the ability to start spot if needed and produce in terms of points and rebounding/with toughness on the interior--we dont have that on the bench. We have a bunch of guys who jack 25 footers. You cant say I dont want this guy or that guy--Andrew Bynum doesnt run the floor very well--we wouldnt trade ANY three players on this team right now for him?????????? I would trade every last player for him and build around him and I could care less if he doesnt get up and down as fast as a sprinter---but he will get me 24-12-2 and help me win games and attract top notch talent to play with him.

I don't think there is a right or wrong here--it would have been a very positive pick if we took Blair and I am confident we would have a better record than 1-8 with him. The point is a good player is a good player and a good coach should be able to find a spot of a good player.

Malik Rose was pretty damn good on the Spurs and contributed very little in terms of production for the Knicks.

I don't see the fit with Blair here. He would probably be stuck on the bench on this team. Spurs are just a better fit for players like Blair.

From the looks of it we also landed a pretty good player at #29 which is all you can ask for. He doesn't need to be a star. And who is to say that he won't be down the road. 16, 21, 23 with ball hawking style defense as soon as he was given a chance is a great sign.

If Douglas was playing on another team right now. Donnie would be getting RIPPED right now for missing out on him. But since he is on the Knicks he is a flawed player.

However

Isnt this a moot point now that its becoming pretty obvious (by your own admission Briggs) that Douglas is going to be a good two way player?

Walsh was clear all along.. the Knicks payed $3mm for that pick so they could draft Toney Douglas. If he wasnt on the board they were going to dump it or not buy it.

Give the Knicks scouting some credit here. Perimeter defense was and is a HUGE issue for this team. They went out and got a real pit bull who's scoring in bunches at 50%.

Pretty damn good no?

Who cares about Blair... our guy is looking like a steal also

Is Donnie getting ripped for missing out on Meeks/Buddinger/Jerebko/Young? Meeks did tear us up along with Jennings the other night.

What is the value of Douglas' points coming from that position? Wake me up when that wins us a game.

This guy is a NICE PICK and is a fit as a backup off the bench, unfortunately we have no starting guards.

What's the crux of tha matter here? Some dude wants to knock Briggs for touting Blair prior to the draft. Is Briggs wrong? Absolutely not. If someone had said, hey we should target this Douglas kid because he's a fit as a reserve guard, then they would have been right too.

The problem for our GM is that he went through the 09 draft without trying to solve the starting PG or SG problems when there were plenty on the board. Now Douglas is being wedged into a position that he's really not equipped for. If he's going to be our lead guard and can't set other players up, then he might put up points, but that's not going to help us.

JohnWallace44 wrote:You gotta be kidding me that Donnie would be getting ripped for missing out on Douglas. NYNY, what's Douglas' position?Is Donnie getting ripped for missing out on Meeks/Buddinger/Jerebko/Young? Meeks did tear us up along with Jennings the other night.

What is the value of Douglas' points coming from that position? Wake me up when that wins us a game.

This guy is a NICE PICK and is a fit as a backup off the bench, unfortunately we have no starting guards.

What's the crux of tha matter here? Some dude wants to knock Briggs for touting Blair prior to the draft. Is Briggs wrong? Absolutely not. If someone had said, hey we should target this Douglas kid because he's a fit as a reserve guard, then they would have been right too.

The problem for our GM is that he went through the 09 draft without trying to solve the starting PG or SG problems when there were plenty on the board. Now Douglas is being wedged into a position that he's really not equipped for. If he's going to be our lead guard and can't set other players up, then he might put up points, but that's not going to help us.

Nobody should be kicked Walsh for passing on a 6'5 center with two surgically repaired knees.

Wow... surround him with Horford, Joe Johnson, Bibby, Josh Smith and Marvin Williams and suddenly Jamal Crawford is better shooter, a more fundamentally sound player and a "winner."

None of that changes on another team. I'm tired of Gallo. A better PG would help, but he's gotta help the PG too.

Any of you who want to defend Walsh for that one, step right up.

Douglas is a nice bench player. Donnie didn't screw it up, you can say that much. Its just the rest of the team is so poorly constructed that he's being put in a position he's not suited for.

Charlie Ward took a couple yrs to become a solid shooter and he only really developed his 3pt shooting and never became a good all around shooter. Douglas could create shots for himself, Ward depended on Ewing, LJ, Sprewell, Houston go get him shots. Douglas already has him beat out as a shooter in his rookie season. Douglas also has smoother handle then Ward. He has a better transition game then Ward. Ward was a college football star. Douglas was a college basketball star. What Ward turned himself into as a B-ball player was odd beating. But I don't believe he has more talent then Douglas.

I will admit that its not fair to Ward to say Douglas is better then him yet until he at least play more then 3 good games. But I do think he has more potential then being a Charlie Ward.

JohnWallace44 wrote:Gallo is not a good player. Sorry. He's Curry on the 3 point line. Its hard to get him the ball. Has to be the perfect situation for him to be effective. He turns it over. He has a teaser game every time there's a full moon.

The hate is strong with this one.