newyorker4ever wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

nyknickzingis wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

nyknickzingis wrote:Phil Jackson can do what every other GM in the last 20 years would do - trade draft picks, heck maybe even trade Porzingis for an all-star, and it would just repeat the same trend.

Knicks become good for a year, then they realize the team they have isn't good enough to win a championship and regret trading draft picks and investing so much in veteran all-stars who are on decline.

Melo needs help? He's had help in his career. He had help in Denver, he chose to go to NY. He had help in NY, and he didn't do much with it. Now it's about re-building the team for the longterm. If he can't accept that, if it's not going to work out for him, he can waive his NTC and we can some young players.

Is Phil building the team for the long term sake of the Knicks or his own legacy and philosophy?

Jerian Grant, Kristaps Porzingis and preserving picks in 2017 and 2018 are not for his legacy. Hernangomez is another solid pick. These are all moves that will likely pay dividends (maybe not all of them, but some of them) well after Phil is retired or reduced to a consultant role. He won't be working at this level 5 years from now, but guys like Porzingis may be the face of the franchise and guys that were drafted could be playing with him. In free agency we've literally got boat loads of capspace in 2017 if we want to use it then, and have considerable this summer as well.

Sure he believes in the Triangle, he believes in a certain style of play. However he has yet to make transactions or moves that have shown to be harmful to the longterm stability of the franchise. Every move he's made virtually has been with a longterm view point. In 3-4-5 years Phil may not be a Knick president, and we may not be running the Triangle. I promise you though, if Porzingis is the player he can be, if some of the picks we make in these years turn out to be good, and we sign 1 or 2 star free agents between 2016-2018, you all will be looking back and saying thank god for Phil's patience and approach. The Triangle is just a way of setting up a team on offense. Rarely do we even run it exclusively or with the type of approach some think. We go into isolations with Melo, we go into pick and rolls. Post dumps. Lots of stuff. It's about having the talent in place that can make shots, that can defend. We just don't have that talent right now.

Glad you see things half full under Phil. How many more years does he get a pass for the type of talent he has brought here so far?

We have and old PG who should be coming off the bench or retired.
A formerly retired SG who is not a machine.
An old Aflalo who does not know the meaning of the word PASS
A young 7'3 rookie that thinks he is a SG and has hit a wall.(Other teams knowing how to play him)
An All Star with bad knees that is being played to the ground.
An inconsistent Center who dissappears way too often.
A D league level back court as back ups. And no Grant not giving me any hope.
Several journeyman that play as well as any minimum salary guy in the NBA.
So...lots of old guys, D league talent and minimum salary players.

Phil has to be judged like any other GM. And so far the direction is not any better than when he arrived. We have 3 or 4 players, that would be contributors on a solid NBA team. And one of them has has hit a wall and needs to improve a lot more before we start calling him the new face of the franchise. Specially when teams have plenty of scouting reports and are now familiar with his game. Melo has been playing beter team ball but has bad knees. You would think Phil would limit his minutes as he is not going anywhere and we need him to be healthy next year. Lastly, we have Rolo, who has shown signs of being a solid contributor but also shown why he was sat so often by the Blazers.

And keep thinking that the triangle is just a way of setting up. Not smart to ignore the fact many NBA players have stated and feel it is not a system they will want to play in. Wait a minute,.. this response has totally depressed me. Lmao Your probably right, were gonna kill it next year!
Go Knicks!

Well since he's only had one year that he's used to actually bring in talent which was this year then he should have two more years to bring in the right talent. Last year was breaking the team down so that doesn't count as a building year.

This is a perfect example of the impatience of NYK Fans! As you pointed out, this is the 1st year Phil had a significant cap to bring in talent. People act like he's been here 5 years and nothing got done. In addition there are so few franchise changing talents in the NBA and they're extremely hard to get. The chances are very slim that Phil can convince a top tier talent to come.

So that leaves Phil with B level talent at best and youth. We're talking about the Jennings and Bazemore's of the NBA. SO NO INSTANT TITLE TEAM.

CrushAlot wrote:I wonder if Melo is comfortable with the Sasha/Jose back court. Seeing this as the starting line up will make it hard to watch tonight.

if melo is comfortable???

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

mreinman wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

mreinman wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:You also have to factor in sample sizes, so using mid year trades/pick ups does not really do the stats justice.

Take Carmelo and the 10 games he has played in March for example, his TS% is over 60% so far but for the most part he has avg 53%.

sometimes players go on a good run(Joe Johsnon/Heat). Sometimes players have bad years. All you can really do is look at their past to try to judge their futures. System fit is sometimes a factor but it is rare that one will jump to one extreme to another unless they are rookies.

Fair enough. Though I think it is fair to argue that Goran Dragic was far more effective in Phoenix, based on style of play and roster makeup.

And I don't know any predictive model that could've explained Lance Stephenson's abberration in Charlotte - he certainly wasn't a rookie.

And Tobias Harris has been way more effective in Detroit and he's no rookie.

I'm just saying that flatly looking at stats is not the best predictive indicator - situation, offensive style, roster makeup does play a large role in on court success.

this is the line that for some reason people still use though nobody ever said to do. Quite the contrary. But I'm sure that people will still use this as a trump card when needed

okay, so you agree that looking flatly at WS/48 and TS% are not the only metrics to use to judge a player's value and potential in a new team situation?

because that style didn't really work for Houston, for one thing.

you are losing me here. I don't think that you can flatly look at anything.

I can say however, that a player who clearly can't shoot (yet) and who has so far been a brutal NBA player with brutal efficiency, has a very little chance to turn it around and become a good player.

Can he? Of course he CAN!

And what didn't work for Houston?

building a team focusing on analytics and ignoring team fit and personality fit and roster makeup.

Ty Lawson went from .557 TS% in Denver to .478 TS% in Houston, for instance.

and I think it is crazy to look at a 22yr old's TS% or WS48 and assume they cannot dramatically improve.

they CAN CAN CAN CAN CAN dramatically improve. They CAN also go to the hall of fame.

Didn't Houston go from being a nobody from going to the playoffs a few times and pushing one of the best teams of our generation in the WCF? So not working means not winning a ring? How bad is this argument? They made something out of nothing. The worst move they made was getting rid of lowry.

You can't just grasp at examples that you have in your head. Track some of these stats for a few months and you will see that it is the best predictor that you have at your fingertips. It is way way way more right than wrong. Finding out liars is irrelevant. There are always and there will always be out liars.

TONY WROTEN CAN CAN CAN be a very good player. He just probably won't be so therefore I would not guarantee him money nor would I give money to habitually bad or below average players like jennings or turner.

You want to pay these guys on gut? Go ahead. Asking me what I suggest that is better does not make paying your bad players a better argument.

You keep ignoring other factors outside of your favorite stats and calling it "gut" as an insult. You fail to realize that the so called "gut" way has been responsible for more winning franchises than your beloved Metrics have! All of the stuff you believe in is still relatively new.

Analytics has its place but it's not the end all be all. There are other ways to evaluate players. Also you gotta lighten up on this notion that the Knicks would somehow invest too much in a prospect like Wroten. Literally NO ONE is suggesting giving him significant guaranteed money before he proves himself.

keep using your gut and keep getting things wrong. Eyes and numbers along with better logic and analytical skills is what works. Not gut and miscalculation and terrible inferences.

StarksEwing1 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:I wonder if Melo is comfortable with the Sasha/Jose back court. Seeing this as the starting line up will make it hard to watch tonight.

who the heck cares what he approves of or not. I admit i dont like that backcourt but melo should have no input into anything

I got to find something that I can be comfortable with and still enjoy it at the same time,

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

mreinman wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

mreinman wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:You also have to factor in sample sizes, so using mid year trades/pick ups does not really do the stats justice.

Take Carmelo and the 10 games he has played in March for example, his TS% is over 60% so far but for the most part he has avg 53%.

sometimes players go on a good run(Joe Johsnon/Heat). Sometimes players have bad years. All you can really do is look at their past to try to judge their futures. System fit is sometimes a factor but it is rare that one will jump to one extreme to another unless they are rookies.

Fair enough. Though I think it is fair to argue that Goran Dragic was far more effective in Phoenix, based on style of play and roster makeup.

And I don't know any predictive model that could've explained Lance Stephenson's abberration in Charlotte - he certainly wasn't a rookie.

And Tobias Harris has been way more effective in Detroit and he's no rookie.

I'm just saying that flatly looking at stats is not the best predictive indicator - situation, offensive style, roster makeup does play a large role in on court success.

this is the line that for some reason people still use though nobody ever said to do. Quite the contrary. But I'm sure that people will still use this as a trump card when needed

okay, so you agree that looking flatly at WS/48 and TS% are not the only metrics to use to judge a player's value and potential in a new team situation?

because that style didn't really work for Houston, for one thing.

you are losing me here. I don't think that you can flatly look at anything.

I can say however, that a player who clearly can't shoot (yet) and who has so far been a brutal NBA player with brutal efficiency, has a very little chance to turn it around and become a good player.

Can he? Of course he CAN!

And what didn't work for Houston?

building a team focusing on analytics and ignoring team fit and personality fit and roster makeup.

Ty Lawson went from .557 TS% in Denver to .478 TS% in Houston, for instance.

and I think it is crazy to look at a 22yr old's TS% or WS48 and assume they cannot dramatically improve.

they CAN CAN CAN CAN CAN dramatically improve. They CAN also go to the hall of fame.

Didn't Houston go from being a nobody from going to the playoffs a few times and pushing one of the best teams of our generation in the WCF? So not working means not winning a ring? How bad is this argument? They made something out of nothing. The worst move they made was getting rid of lowry.

You can't just grasp at examples that you have in your head. Track some of these stats for a few months and you will see that it is the best predictor that you have at your fingertips. It is way way way more right than wrong. Finding out liars is irrelevant. There are always and there will always be out liars.

TONY WROTEN CAN CAN CAN be a very good player. He just probably won't be so therefore I would not guarantee him money nor would I give money to habitually bad or below average players like jennings or turner.

You want to pay these guys on gut? Go ahead. Asking me what I suggest that is better does not make paying your bad players a better argument.

You keep ignoring other factors outside of your favorite stats and calling it "gut" as an insult. You fail to realize that the so called "gut" way has been responsible for more winning franchises than your beloved Metrics have! All of the stuff you believe in is still relatively new.

Analytics has its place but it's not the end all be all. There are other ways to evaluate players. Also you gotta lighten up on this notion that the Knicks would somehow invest too much in a prospect like Wroten. Literally NO ONE is suggesting giving him significant guaranteed money before he proves himself.

keep using your gut and keep getting things wrong. Eyes and numbers along with better logic and analytical skills is what works. Not gut and miscalculation and terrible inferences.

Which GM's are you referring too? Never mind me but how many teams have won titles the way you suggest? Until the Warriors last year everyone else did it the old fashioned way!

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

mreinman wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

mreinman wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:You also have to factor in sample sizes, so using mid year trades/pick ups does not really do the stats justice.

Take Carmelo and the 10 games he has played in March for example, his TS% is over 60% so far but for the most part he has avg 53%.

sometimes players go on a good run(Joe Johsnon/Heat). Sometimes players have bad years. All you can really do is look at their past to try to judge their futures. System fit is sometimes a factor but it is rare that one will jump to one extreme to another unless they are rookies.

Fair enough. Though I think it is fair to argue that Goran Dragic was far more effective in Phoenix, based on style of play and roster makeup.

And I don't know any predictive model that could've explained Lance Stephenson's abberration in Charlotte - he certainly wasn't a rookie.

And Tobias Harris has been way more effective in Detroit and he's no rookie.

I'm just saying that flatly looking at stats is not the best predictive indicator - situation, offensive style, roster makeup does play a large role in on court success.

this is the line that for some reason people still use though nobody ever said to do. Quite the contrary. But I'm sure that people will still use this as a trump card when needed

okay, so you agree that looking flatly at WS/48 and TS% are not the only metrics to use to judge a player's value and potential in a new team situation?

because that style didn't really work for Houston, for one thing.

you are losing me here. I don't think that you can flatly look at anything.

I can say however, that a player who clearly can't shoot (yet) and who has so far been a brutal NBA player with brutal efficiency, has a very little chance to turn it around and become a good player.

Can he? Of course he CAN!

And what didn't work for Houston?

building a team focusing on analytics and ignoring team fit and personality fit and roster makeup.

Ty Lawson went from .557 TS% in Denver to .478 TS% in Houston, for instance.

and I think it is crazy to look at a 22yr old's TS% or WS48 and assume they cannot dramatically improve.

they CAN CAN CAN CAN CAN dramatically improve. They CAN also go to the hall of fame.

Didn't Houston go from being a nobody from going to the playoffs a few times and pushing one of the best teams of our generation in the WCF? So not working means not winning a ring? How bad is this argument? They made something out of nothing. The worst move they made was getting rid of lowry.

You can't just grasp at examples that you have in your head. Track some of these stats for a few months and you will see that it is the best predictor that you have at your fingertips. It is way way way more right than wrong. Finding out liars is irrelevant. There are always and there will always be out liars.

TONY WROTEN CAN CAN CAN be a very good player. He just probably won't be so therefore I would not guarantee him money nor would I give money to habitually bad or below average players like jennings or turner.

You want to pay these guys on gut? Go ahead. Asking me what I suggest that is better does not make paying your bad players a better argument.

You keep ignoring other factors outside of your favorite stats and calling it "gut" as an insult. You fail to realize that the so called "gut" way has been responsible for more winning franchises than your beloved Metrics have! All of the stuff you believe in is still relatively new.

Analytics has its place but it's not the end all be all. There are other ways to evaluate players. Also you gotta lighten up on this notion that the Knicks would somehow invest too much in a prospect like Wroten. Literally NO ONE is suggesting giving him significant guaranteed money before he proves himself.

keep using your gut and keep getting things wrong. Eyes and numbers along with better logic and analytical skills is what works. Not gut and miscalculation and terrible inferences.

Which GM's are you referring too? Never mind me but how many teams have won titles the way you suggest? Until the Warriors last year everyone else did it the old fashioned way!

old fashion? what is that?

SA is old fashion? No they are not. They are cutting edge.

dk7th wrote:He's the most important player and the franchise's most relevant player. The writing was on the wall on draft night but the future came sooner than anyone predicted-- not Melo's future of course. He should either leave now or accept that it is no longer going to be his team. A reduced role here is his only legit shot at a title .

A reduced role sounds great. Now the question is who is reducing that role for? Langston? Jose? KP?

Is the problem Melo or the rest of the team? Or is this just a Melo opened his mouth so lets have a circle jerk type thread? Who else on the Knicks says anything?