martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:lol the fact that layden can get another job is pretty crazy. minnesota can't help themselves but always find a way to screw something good up.

He was a really bad GM, but being part of the Spurs organization is a get out of jail free card. Just going through the motions there and being a "yes man" in that organization was bound to get him a new opportunity at some point. If he's an assistant GM for any other team (maybe with exception to golden state) he never gets interviewed for a GM job again.

Other than the Shandon Anderson and Howard Eisley contracts, I think a lot of what Layden gets blamed for in NY were actually Dolan's call. Camby trade. Ewing trade. Sprewell trade. All Dolan.

Yeah, I'd go so far as to say I don't think you can really judge any of the GMs/Presidents under Dolan. It's not an environment where anyone can thrive. If Phil has full authority, then the comment applies only to the ones before him, though.

if Phil had full authority Melo wouldn't be here for 5yrs $124,000,000 MILLION DOLLARS

Or maybe you're overrating his GM skills. When Phil signed here, I would have predicted
-He'd never go 49-115 in his first 2 full seasons
-He'd never trade Tyson Chandler for Jose Calderon
-He'd never give 8 mil per year to Aaron Afflalo
-He'd never get turned down by all top tier FAs when we had huge cap space
-And much more that I'm not even going to list.

I would have predicted....

- The 2013-14 Knicks roster was old, capped out and at a transition needed a rebuild and were in for a tough road, bad couple of years regardless of the President/GM/Coach
- Tyson Chandler was old, injury prone and becoming a malcontent and he was overvalued by Knicks fans on the trade market.
- Aaron Afflalo would be mediocre at best but with a stop-gap type contract would only be a Knick for 1-2 years with no long term Cap impact
- The Knicks would not sign a Top Tier FA given their roster last year and that there were really not an abundance available and further that they only had enough cap space to sign one Max player.

Bottom line is that the chances of an overnight Turn-Around in the NBA are very slim. Knicks need to continue to build/improve their roster without tying up long term cap space and ignore fans/media who keep looking backwards to point out failures or who expect immediate significant results in terms of W/L. This means not trading First Rounders and tying up long term Max contract cap space on guys who are not LBJ, Curry, Durant, Westbrook etc.

But he gave Melo a bigger contract than any of those four players have.
Regarding your comments about W-L, I realize that's what some here are saying now. But when the team he inherited was playing close to .500, I do not remember anyone saying we're probably going to be a .300 team for the next few years now that Phil is here. Also, even if you think Tyson was overrated, Phil actually added 2 years and $14 mil to our payroll just to have the privilege of putting Calderon in our backcourt.

maybe I'm not following the context, but are you saying that Phil inherited a .500 team? I don't think that's the case. He inherited a team that only won a few more games (37) than the team did this past year, a team that was capped out for another year and was looking down the barrel of 1 first round pick over 3 years.

they are on a roll... your attempt at logic cant stop that train

No, he's actually just arguing about whether .451 should be considered close to .500. There isn't an objective cut off for "close." So there's nothing to even discuss. I've clarified that I was considering .451 close to .500. If you don't consider it close, then it's just opinion. It would be like arguing over whether green is a nice color.

across the whole of the 2013-14 season, the Knicks were very consistently 10-15 games under .500; for me, they were also closer to a .400 team in actual play. The team finished the season a very well, winning 15 of their last 20 games or something crazy like that. That's not a .500 team or even close.

For parts of the season, they were a disaster and other parts a superb team. I was referring to the whole season. I know some people when analyzing teams will just look at a segment of the season but statistically I think of that as a bad practice.

Do your analysis ans show me, I just gave you my high level take on the season: the Knicks were very consistently 10-15 games under .500 for more than half of the season; the team finished the season very well, winning 15 of their last 20 games or something crazy like that.

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:lol the fact that layden can get another job is pretty crazy. minnesota can't help themselves but always find a way to screw something good up.

He was a really bad GM, but being part of the Spurs organization is a get out of jail free card. Just going through the motions there and being a "yes man" in that organization was bound to get him a new opportunity at some point. If he's an assistant GM for any other team (maybe with exception to golden state) he never gets interviewed for a GM job again.

Other than the Shandon Anderson and Howard Eisley contracts, I think a lot of what Layden gets blamed for in NY were actually Dolan's call. Camby trade. Ewing trade. Sprewell trade. All Dolan.

Yeah, I'd go so far as to say I don't think you can really judge any of the GMs/Presidents under Dolan. It's not an environment where anyone can thrive. If Phil has full authority, then the comment applies only to the ones before him, though.

if Phil had full authority Melo wouldn't be here for 5yrs $124,000,000 MILLION DOLLARS

Or maybe you're overrating his GM skills. When Phil signed here, I would have predicted
-He'd never go 49-115 in his first 2 full seasons
-He'd never trade Tyson Chandler for Jose Calderon
-He'd never give 8 mil per year to Aaron Afflalo
-He'd never get turned down by all top tier FAs when we had huge cap space
-And much more that I'm not even going to list.

I would have predicted....

- The 2013-14 Knicks roster was old, capped out and at a transition needed a rebuild and were in for a tough road, bad couple of years regardless of the President/GM/Coach
- Tyson Chandler was old, injury prone and becoming a malcontent and he was overvalued by Knicks fans on the trade market.
- Aaron Afflalo would be mediocre at best but with a stop-gap type contract would only be a Knick for 1-2 years with no long term Cap impact
- The Knicks would not sign a Top Tier FA given their roster last year and that there were really not an abundance available and further that they only had enough cap space to sign one Max player.

Bottom line is that the chances of an overnight Turn-Around in the NBA are very slim. Knicks need to continue to build/improve their roster without tying up long term cap space and ignore fans/media who keep looking backwards to point out failures or who expect immediate significant results in terms of W/L. This means not trading First Rounders and tying up long term Max contract cap space on guys who are not LBJ, Curry, Durant, Westbrook etc.

But he gave Melo a bigger contract than any of those four players have.
Regarding your comments about W-L, I realize that's what some here are saying now. But when the team he inherited was playing close to .500, I do not remember anyone saying we're probably going to be a .300 team for the next few years now that Phil is here. Also, even if you think Tyson was overrated, Phil actually added 2 years and $14 mil to our payroll just to have the privilege of putting Calderon in our backcourt.

maybe I'm not following the context, but are you saying that Phil inherited a .500 team? I don't think that's the case. He inherited a team that only won a few more games (37) than the team did this past year, a team that was capped out for another year and was looking down the barrel of 1 first round pick over 3 years.

they are on a roll... your attempt at logic cant stop that train

No, he's actually just arguing about whether .451 should be considered close to .500. There isn't an objective cut off for "close." So there's nothing to even discuss. I've clarified that I was considering .451 close to .500. If you don't consider it close, then it's just opinion. It would be like arguing over whether green is a nice color.

across the whole of the 2013-14 season, the Knicks were very consistently 10-15 games under .500; for me, they were also closer to a .400 team in actual play. The team finished the season a very well, winning 15 of their last 20 games or something crazy like that. That's not a .500 team or even close.

For parts of the season, they were a disaster and other parts a superb team. I was referring to the whole season. I know some people when analyzing teams will just look at a segment of the season but statistically I think of that as a bad practice.

Do your analysis ans show me, I just gave you my high level take on the season: the Knicks were very consistently 10-15 games under .500 for more than half of the season; the team finished the season very well, winning 15 of their last 20 games or something crazy like that.

What analysis are you asking for? I don't get the question.
Regardless, I clarified what I meant when I said close to .500. I was considering .451 close to .500. This whole discussion was not crucial to the thread by any means. I would have just said he inherited a .451 team instead of saying a close to .500 team if I knew it was going to be a big deal.

Bonn, you live and die by stats and now your round off in a way that's just very inaccurate. The team was no where NEAR a .500 team at ALL during the season, very far off. For a large bulk of the season they are 10 games UNDER .500, which is a LOT.

.500 team suggests a playoff team in most seasons, bottom feeder no doubt; I am wondering when the last team to have a 37 win season made the playoffs. They don't, they are a lottery team.

Phil inherited a lottery bound team that was capped out and didn't have a pick.

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:lol the fact that layden can get another job is pretty crazy. minnesota can't help themselves but always find a way to screw something good up.

He was a really bad GM, but being part of the Spurs organization is a get out of jail free card. Just going through the motions there and being a "yes man" in that organization was bound to get him a new opportunity at some point. If he's an assistant GM for any other team (maybe with exception to golden state) he never gets interviewed for a GM job again.

Other than the Shandon Anderson and Howard Eisley contracts, I think a lot of what Layden gets blamed for in NY were actually Dolan's call. Camby trade. Ewing trade. Sprewell trade. All Dolan.

Yeah, I'd go so far as to say I don't think you can really judge any of the GMs/Presidents under Dolan. It's not an environment where anyone can thrive. If Phil has full authority, then the comment applies only to the ones before him, though.

if Phil had full authority Melo wouldn't be here for 5yrs $124,000,000 MILLION DOLLARS

Or maybe you're overrating his GM skills. When Phil signed here, I would have predicted
-He'd never go 49-115 in his first 2 full seasons
-He'd never trade Tyson Chandler for Jose Calderon
-He'd never give 8 mil per year to Aaron Afflalo
-He'd never get turned down by all top tier FAs when we had huge cap space
-And much more that I'm not even going to list.

I would have predicted....

- The 2013-14 Knicks roster was old, capped out and at a transition needed a rebuild and were in for a tough road, bad couple of years regardless of the President/GM/Coach
- Tyson Chandler was old, injury prone and becoming a malcontent and he was overvalued by Knicks fans on the trade market.
- Aaron Afflalo would be mediocre at best but with a stop-gap type contract would only be a Knick for 1-2 years with no long term Cap impact
- The Knicks would not sign a Top Tier FA given their roster last year and that there were really not an abundance available and further that they only had enough cap space to sign one Max player.

Bottom line is that the chances of an overnight Turn-Around in the NBA are very slim. Knicks need to continue to build/improve their roster without tying up long term cap space and ignore fans/media who keep looking backwards to point out failures or who expect immediate significant results in terms of W/L. This means not trading First Rounders and tying up long term Max contract cap space on guys who are not LBJ, Curry, Durant, Westbrook etc.

But he gave Melo a bigger contract than any of those four players have.
Regarding your comments about W-L, I realize that's what some here are saying now. But when the team he inherited was playing close to .500, I do not remember anyone saying we're probably going to be a .300 team for the next few years now that Phil is here. Also, even if you think Tyson was overrated, Phil actually added 2 years and $14 mil to our payroll just to have the privilege of putting Calderon in our backcourt.

maybe I'm not following the context, but are you saying that Phil inherited a .500 team? I don't think that's the case. He inherited a team that only won a few more games (37) than the team did this past year, a team that was capped out for another year and was looking down the barrel of 1 first round pick over 3 years.

they are on a roll... your attempt at logic cant stop that train

No, he's actually just arguing about whether .451 should be considered close to .500. There isn't an objective cut off for "close." So there's nothing to even discuss. I've clarified that I was considering .451 close to .500. If you don't consider it close, then it's just opinion. It would be like arguing over whether green is a nice color.

across the whole of the 2013-14 season, the Knicks were very consistently 10-15 games under .500; for me, they were also closer to a .400 team in actual play. The team finished the season a very well, winning 15 of their last 20 games or something crazy like that. That's not a .500 team or even close.

For parts of the season, they were a disaster and other parts a superb team. I was referring to the whole season. I know some people when analyzing teams will just look at a segment of the season but statistically I think of that as a bad practice.

Do your analysis ans show me, I just gave you my high level take on the season: the Knicks were very consistently 10-15 games under .500 for more than half of the season; the team finished the season very well, winning 15 of their last 20 games or something crazy like that.

What analysis are you asking for? I don't get the question.
Regardless, I clarified what I meant when I said close to .500. I was considering .451 close to .500. This whole discussion was not crucial to the thread by any means. I would have just said he inherited a .451 team instead of saying a close to .500 team if I knew it was going to be a big deal.

Bonn, you live and die by stats and now your round off in a way that's just very inaccurate. The team was no where NEAR a .500 team at ALL during the season, very far off. For a large bulk of the season they are 10 games UNDER .500, which is a LOT.

.500 team suggests a playoff team in most seasons, bottom feeder no doubt; I am wondering when the last team to have a 37 win season made the playoffs. They don't, they are a lottery team.

Phil inherited a lottery bound team that was capped out and didn't have a pick.

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:lol the fact that layden can get another job is pretty crazy. minnesota can't help themselves but always find a way to screw something good up.

He was a really bad GM, but being part of the Spurs organization is a get out of jail free card. Just going through the motions there and being a "yes man" in that organization was bound to get him a new opportunity at some point. If he's an assistant GM for any other team (maybe with exception to golden state) he never gets interviewed for a GM job again.

Other than the Shandon Anderson and Howard Eisley contracts, I think a lot of what Layden gets blamed for in NY were actually Dolan's call. Camby trade. Ewing trade. Sprewell trade. All Dolan.

Yeah, I'd go so far as to say I don't think you can really judge any of the GMs/Presidents under Dolan. It's not an environment where anyone can thrive. If Phil has full authority, then the comment applies only to the ones before him, though.

if Phil had full authority Melo wouldn't be here for 5yrs $124,000,000 MILLION DOLLARS

Or maybe you're overrating his GM skills. When Phil signed here, I would have predicted
-He'd never go 49-115 in his first 2 full seasons
-He'd never trade Tyson Chandler for Jose Calderon
-He'd never give 8 mil per year to Aaron Afflalo
-He'd never get turned down by all top tier FAs when we had huge cap space
-And much more that I'm not even going to list.

I would have predicted....

- The 2013-14 Knicks roster was old, capped out and at a transition needed a rebuild and were in for a tough road, bad couple of years regardless of the President/GM/Coach
- Tyson Chandler was old, injury prone and becoming a malcontent and he was overvalued by Knicks fans on the trade market.
- Aaron Afflalo would be mediocre at best but with a stop-gap type contract would only be a Knick for 1-2 years with no long term Cap impact
- The Knicks would not sign a Top Tier FA given their roster last year and that there were really not an abundance available and further that they only had enough cap space to sign one Max player.

Bottom line is that the chances of an overnight Turn-Around in the NBA are very slim. Knicks need to continue to build/improve their roster without tying up long term cap space and ignore fans/media who keep looking backwards to point out failures or who expect immediate significant results in terms of W/L. This means not trading First Rounders and tying up long term Max contract cap space on guys who are not LBJ, Curry, Durant, Westbrook etc.

But he gave Melo a bigger contract than any of those four players have.
Regarding your comments about W-L, I realize that's what some here are saying now. But when the team he inherited was playing close to .500, I do not remember anyone saying we're probably going to be a .300 team for the next few years now that Phil is here. Also, even if you think Tyson was overrated, Phil actually added 2 years and $14 mil to our payroll just to have the privilege of putting Calderon in our backcourt.

maybe I'm not following the context, but are you saying that Phil inherited a .500 team? I don't think that's the case. He inherited a team that only won a few more games (37) than the team did this past year, a team that was capped out for another year and was looking down the barrel of 1 first round pick over 3 years.

they are on a roll... your attempt at logic cant stop that train

No, he's actually just arguing about whether .451 should be considered close to .500. There isn't an objective cut off for "close." So there's nothing to even discuss. I've clarified that I was considering .451 close to .500. If you don't consider it close, then it's just opinion. It would be like arguing over whether green is a nice color.

across the whole of the 2013-14 season, the Knicks were very consistently 10-15 games under .500; for me, they were also closer to a .400 team in actual play. The team finished the season a very well, winning 15 of their last 20 games or something crazy like that. That's not a .500 team or even close.

For parts of the season, they were a disaster and other parts a superb team. I was referring to the whole season. I know some people when analyzing teams will just look at a segment of the season but statistically I think of that as a bad practice.

Do your analysis ans show me, I just gave you my high level take on the season: the Knicks were very consistently 10-15 games under .500 for more than half of the season; the team finished the season very well, winning 15 of their last 20 games or something crazy like that.

What analysis are you asking for? I don't get the question.
Regardless, I clarified what I meant when I said close to .500. I was considering .451 close to .500. This whole discussion was not crucial to the thread by any means. I would have just said he inherited a .451 team instead of saying a close to .500 team if I knew it was going to be a big deal.

Bonn, you live and die by stats and now your round off in a way that's just very inaccurate. The team was no where NEAR a .500 team at ALL during the season, very far off. For a large bulk of the season they are 10 games UNDER .500, which is a LOT.

.500 team suggests a playoff team in most seasons, bottom feeder no doubt; I am wondering when the last team to have a 37 win season made the playoffs. They don't, they are a lottery team.

Phil inherited a lottery bound team that was capped out and didn't have a pick.

OK. It's very inaccurate to call .451 close to .500. My bad.
My rounding was definitely inaccurate too. I forgot that in this context, 45.1 rounds down to 40.
You're seriously derailing the thread simply because you think .451 shouldn't be rounded to .500?

why round at all? state fact as fact. The Knicks played no where near .500 for about 90% of the season. That's about a magnitude better and a lot more accurate than trying to convince us that Phil inherited what you call close to a .500 team. It's blatantly misleading.

Seriously Bonn, the only person you are doing a disservice to is yourself. You're a deep stats guy. Numbers seem to be your thing. You wanna play fast and loose, all of your other stat based arguments start to come apart at the seems as everyone should ask themselves, "Well, is Bonn rounding for the hell of it to make a slant based argument or are his ideas based off of sound thought backed by hard evidence".

Yours to lose.

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:lol the fact that layden can get another job is pretty crazy. minnesota can't help themselves but always find a way to screw something good up.

He was a really bad GM, but being part of the Spurs organization is a get out of jail free card. Just going through the motions there and being a "yes man" in that organization was bound to get him a new opportunity at some point. If he's an assistant GM for any other team (maybe with exception to golden state) he never gets interviewed for a GM job again.

Other than the Shandon Anderson and Howard Eisley contracts, I think a lot of what Layden gets blamed for in NY were actually Dolan's call. Camby trade. Ewing trade. Sprewell trade. All Dolan.

Yeah, I'd go so far as to say I don't think you can really judge any of the GMs/Presidents under Dolan. It's not an environment where anyone can thrive. If Phil has full authority, then the comment applies only to the ones before him, though.

if Phil had full authority Melo wouldn't be here for 5yrs $124,000,000 MILLION DOLLARS

Or maybe you're overrating his GM skills. When Phil signed here, I would have predicted
-He'd never go 49-115 in his first 2 full seasons
-He'd never trade Tyson Chandler for Jose Calderon
-He'd never give 8 mil per year to Aaron Afflalo
-He'd never get turned down by all top tier FAs when we had huge cap space
-And much more that I'm not even going to list.

I would have predicted....

- The 2013-14 Knicks roster was old, capped out and at a transition needed a rebuild and were in for a tough road, bad couple of years regardless of the President/GM/Coach
- Tyson Chandler was old, injury prone and becoming a malcontent and he was overvalued by Knicks fans on the trade market.
- Aaron Afflalo would be mediocre at best but with a stop-gap type contract would only be a Knick for 1-2 years with no long term Cap impact
- The Knicks would not sign a Top Tier FA given their roster last year and that there were really not an abundance available and further that they only had enough cap space to sign one Max player.

Bottom line is that the chances of an overnight Turn-Around in the NBA are very slim. Knicks need to continue to build/improve their roster without tying up long term cap space and ignore fans/media who keep looking backwards to point out failures or who expect immediate significant results in terms of W/L. This means not trading First Rounders and tying up long term Max contract cap space on guys who are not LBJ, Curry, Durant, Westbrook etc.

But he gave Melo a bigger contract than any of those four players have.
Regarding your comments about W-L, I realize that's what some here are saying now. But when the team he inherited was playing close to .500, I do not remember anyone saying we're probably going to be a .300 team for the next few years now that Phil is here. Also, even if you think Tyson was overrated, Phil actually added 2 years and $14 mil to our payroll just to have the privilege of putting Calderon in our backcourt.

maybe I'm not following the context, but are you saying that Phil inherited a .500 team? I don't think that's the case. He inherited a team that only won a few more games (37) than the team did this past year, a team that was capped out for another year and was looking down the barrel of 1 first round pick over 3 years.

they are on a roll... your attempt at logic cant stop that train

No, he's actually just arguing about whether .451 should be considered close to .500. There isn't an objective cut off for "close." So there's nothing to even discuss. I've clarified that I was considering .451 close to .500. If you don't consider it close, then it's just opinion. It would be like arguing over whether green is a nice color.

across the whole of the 2013-14 season, the Knicks were very consistently 10-15 games under .500; for me, they were also closer to a .400 team in actual play. The team finished the season a very well, winning 15 of their last 20 games or something crazy like that. That's not a .500 team or even close.

For parts of the season, they were a disaster and other parts a superb team. I was referring to the whole season. I know some people when analyzing teams will just look at a segment of the season but statistically I think of that as a bad practice.

Do your analysis ans show me, I just gave you my high level take on the season: the Knicks were very consistently 10-15 games under .500 for more than half of the season; the team finished the season very well, winning 15 of their last 20 games or something crazy like that.

What analysis are you asking for? I don't get the question.
Regardless, I clarified what I meant when I said close to .500. I was considering .451 close to .500. This whole discussion was not crucial to the thread by any means. I would have just said he inherited a .451 team instead of saying a close to .500 team if I knew it was going to be a big deal.

Bonn, you live and die by stats and now your round off in a way that's just very inaccurate. The team was no where NEAR a .500 team at ALL during the season, very far off. For a large bulk of the season they are 10 games UNDER .500, which is a LOT.

.500 team suggests a playoff team in most seasons, bottom feeder no doubt; I am wondering when the last team to have a 37 win season made the playoffs. They don't, they are a lottery team.

Phil inherited a lottery bound team that was capped out and didn't have a pick.

OK. It's very inaccurate to call .451 close to .500. My bad.
My rounding was definitely inaccurate too. I forgot that in this context, 45.1 rounds down to 40.
You're seriously derailing the thread simply because you think .451 shouldn't be rounded to .500?

why round at all? state fact as fact. The Knicks played no where near .500 for about 90% of the season. That's about a magnitude better and a lot more accurate than trying to convince us that Phil inherited what you call close to a .500 team. It's blatantly misleading.

Seriously Bonn, the only person you are doing a disservice to is yourself. You're a deep stats guy. Numbers seem to be your thing. You wanna play fast and loose, all of your other stat based arguments start to come apart at the seems as everyone should ask themselves, "Well, is Bonn rounding for the hell of it to make a slant based argument or are his ideas based off of sound thought backed by hard evidence".

Yours to lose.

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:lol the fact that layden can get another job is pretty crazy. minnesota can't help themselves but always find a way to screw something good up.

He was a really bad GM, but being part of the Spurs organization is a get out of jail free card. Just going through the motions there and being a "yes man" in that organization was bound to get him a new opportunity at some point. If he's an assistant GM for any other team (maybe with exception to golden state) he never gets interviewed for a GM job again.

Other than the Shandon Anderson and Howard Eisley contracts, I think a lot of what Layden gets blamed for in NY were actually Dolan's call. Camby trade. Ewing trade. Sprewell trade. All Dolan.

Yeah, I'd go so far as to say I don't think you can really judge any of the GMs/Presidents under Dolan. It's not an environment where anyone can thrive. If Phil has full authority, then the comment applies only to the ones before him, though.

if Phil had full authority Melo wouldn't be here for 5yrs $124,000,000 MILLION DOLLARS

Or maybe you're overrating his GM skills. When Phil signed here, I would have predicted
-He'd never go 49-115 in his first 2 full seasons
-He'd never trade Tyson Chandler for Jose Calderon
-He'd never give 8 mil per year to Aaron Afflalo
-He'd never get turned down by all top tier FAs when we had huge cap space
-And much more that I'm not even going to list.

I would have predicted....

- The 2013-14 Knicks roster was old, capped out and at a transition needed a rebuild and were in for a tough road, bad couple of years regardless of the President/GM/Coach
- Tyson Chandler was old, injury prone and becoming a malcontent and he was overvalued by Knicks fans on the trade market.
- Aaron Afflalo would be mediocre at best but with a stop-gap type contract would only be a Knick for 1-2 years with no long term Cap impact
- The Knicks would not sign a Top Tier FA given their roster last year and that there were really not an abundance available and further that they only had enough cap space to sign one Max player.

Bottom line is that the chances of an overnight Turn-Around in the NBA are very slim. Knicks need to continue to build/improve their roster without tying up long term cap space and ignore fans/media who keep looking backwards to point out failures or who expect immediate significant results in terms of W/L. This means not trading First Rounders and tying up long term Max contract cap space on guys who are not LBJ, Curry, Durant, Westbrook etc.

But he gave Melo a bigger contract than any of those four players have.
Regarding your comments about W-L, I realize that's what some here are saying now. But when the team he inherited was playing close to .500, I do not remember anyone saying we're probably going to be a .300 team for the next few years now that Phil is here. Also, even if you think Tyson was overrated, Phil actually added 2 years and $14 mil to our payroll just to have the privilege of putting Calderon in our backcourt.

maybe I'm not following the context, but are you saying that Phil inherited a .500 team? I don't think that's the case. He inherited a team that only won a few more games (37) than the team did this past year, a team that was capped out for another year and was looking down the barrel of 1 first round pick over 3 years.

they are on a roll... your attempt at logic cant stop that train

No, he's actually just arguing about whether .451 should be considered close to .500. There isn't an objective cut off for "close." So there's nothing to even discuss. I've clarified that I was considering .451 close to .500. If you don't consider it close, then it's just opinion. It would be like arguing over whether green is a nice color.

across the whole of the 2013-14 season, the Knicks were very consistently 10-15 games under .500; for me, they were also closer to a .400 team in actual play. The team finished the season a very well, winning 15 of their last 20 games or something crazy like that. That's not a .500 team or even close.

For parts of the season, they were a disaster and other parts a superb team. I was referring to the whole season. I know some people when analyzing teams will just look at a segment of the season but statistically I think of that as a bad practice.

Do your analysis ans show me, I just gave you my high level take on the season: the Knicks were very consistently 10-15 games under .500 for more than half of the season; the team finished the season very well, winning 15 of their last 20 games or something crazy like that.

What analysis are you asking for? I don't get the question.
Regardless, I clarified what I meant when I said close to .500. I was considering .451 close to .500. This whole discussion was not crucial to the thread by any means. I would have just said he inherited a .451 team instead of saying a close to .500 team if I knew it was going to be a big deal.

Bonn, you live and die by stats and now your round off in a way that's just very inaccurate. The team was no where NEAR a .500 team at ALL during the season, very far off. For a large bulk of the season they are 10 games UNDER .500, which is a LOT.

.500 team suggests a playoff team in most seasons, bottom feeder no doubt; I am wondering when the last team to have a 37 win season made the playoffs. They don't, they are a lottery team.

Phil inherited a lottery bound team that was capped out and didn't have a pick.

OK. It's very inaccurate to call .451 close to .500. My bad.
My rounding was definitely inaccurate too. I forgot that in this context, 45.1 rounds down to 40.
You're seriously derailing the thread simply because you think .451 shouldn't be rounded to .500?

why round at all? state fact as fact. The Knicks played no where near .500 for about 90% of the season. That's about a magnitude better and a lot more accurate than trying to convince us that Phil inherited what you call close to a .500 team. It's blatantly misleading.

Seriously Bonn, the only person you are doing a disservice to is yourself. You're a deep stats guy. Numbers seem to be your thing. You wanna play fast and loose, all of your other stat based arguments start to come apart at the seems as everyone should ask themselves, "Well, is Bonn rounding for the hell of it to make a slant based argument or are his ideas based off of sound thought backed by hard evidence".

Yours to lose.

8 and 5 is their last 13 and before thats a long winning streak and before that a long losing streak. Not sure how this is diff than a normal up and down pattern for any team.

Tyson was also not healthy at all so perhaps they were a much better team than their record.

The Knicks were 10 games under .500 for pretty much all season. If you wanna say that's close to .500, join Bonn. Tyson was part of the problem and needed to be gotten rid of.

tyson was also hurt and had a great year the next year. The point is not that we should not have gotten rid of him but how and what we got. Tyson should have been traded at the deadline when his value was high.

fishmike wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:lol the fact that layden can get another job is pretty crazy. minnesota can't help themselves but always find a way to screw something good up.

He was a really bad GM, but being part of the Spurs organization is a get out of jail free card. Just going through the motions there and being a "yes man" in that organization was bound to get him a new opportunity at some point. If he's an assistant GM for any other team (maybe with exception to golden state) he never gets interviewed for a GM job again.

Other than the Shandon Anderson and Howard Eisley contracts, I think a lot of what Layden gets blamed for in NY were actually Dolan's call. Camby trade. Ewing trade. Sprewell trade. All Dolan.

Yeah, I'd go so far as to say I don't think you can really judge any of the GMs/Presidents under Dolan. It's not an environment where anyone can thrive. If Phil has full authority, then the comment applies only to the ones before him, though.

if Phil had full authority Melo wouldn't be here for 5yrs $124,000,000 MILLION DOLLARS

Or maybe you're overrating his GM skills. When Phil signed here, I would have predicted
-He'd never go 49-115 in his first 2 full seasons
-He'd never trade Tyson Chandler for Jose Calderon
-He'd never give 8 mil per year to Aaron Afflalo
-He'd never get turned down by all top tier FAs when we had huge cap space
-And much more that I'm not even going to list.

I would have predicted....

- The 2013-14 Knicks roster was old, capped out and at a transition needed a rebuild and were in for a tough road, bad couple of years regardless of the President/GM/Coach
- Tyson Chandler was old, injury prone and becoming a malcontent and he was overvalued by Knicks fans on the trade market.
- Aaron Afflalo would be mediocre at best but with a stop-gap type contract would only be a Knick for 1-2 years with no long term Cap impact
- The Knicks would not sign a Top Tier FA given their roster last year and that there were really not an abundance available and further that they only had enough cap space to sign one Max player.

Bottom line is that the chances of an overnight Turn-Around in the NBA are very slim. Knicks need to continue to build/improve their roster without tying up long term cap space and ignore fans/media who keep looking backwards to point out failures or who expect immediate significant results in terms of W/L. This means not trading First Rounders and tying up long term Max contract cap space on guys who are not LBJ, Curry, Durant, Westbrook etc.

But he gave Melo a bigger contract than any of those four players have.
Regarding your comments about W-L, I realize that's what some here are saying now. But when the team he inherited was playing close to .500, I do not remember anyone saying we're probably going to be a .300 team for the next few years now that Phil is here. Also, even if you think Tyson was overrated, Phil actually added 2 years and $14 mil to our payroll just to have the privilege of putting Calderon in our backcourt.

maybe I'm not following the context, but are you saying that Phil inherited a .500 team? I don't think that's the case. He inherited a team that only won a few more games (37) than the team did this past year, a team that was capped out for another year and was looking down the barrel of 1 first round pick over 3 years.

they are on a roll... your attempt at logic cant stop that train

No, he's actually just arguing about whether .451 should be considered close to .500. There isn't an objective cut off for "close." So there's nothing to even discuss. I've clarified that I was considering .451 close to .500. If you don't consider it close, then it's just opinion. It would be like arguing over whether green is a nice color.

across the whole of the 2013-14 season, the Knicks were very consistently 10-15 games under .500; for me, they were also closer to a .400 team in actual play. The team finished the season a very well, winning 15 of their last 20 games or something crazy like that. That's not a .500 team or even close.

For parts of the season, they were a disaster and other parts a superb team. I was referring to the whole season. I know some people when analyzing teams will just look at a segment of the season but statistically I think of that as a bad practice.

Do your analysis ans show me, I just gave you my high level take on the season: the Knicks were very consistently 10-15 games under .500 for more than half of the season; the team finished the season very well, winning 15 of their last 20 games or something crazy like that.

What analysis are you asking for? I don't get the question.
Regardless, I clarified what I meant when I said close to .500. I was considering .451 close to .500. This whole discussion was not crucial to the thread by any means. I would have just said he inherited a .451 team instead of saying a close to .500 team if I knew it was going to be a big deal.

Bonn, you live and die by stats and now your round off in a way that's just very inaccurate. The team was no where NEAR a .500 team at ALL during the season, very far off. For a large bulk of the season they are 10 games UNDER .500, which is a LOT.

.500 team suggests a playoff team in most seasons, bottom feeder no doubt; I am wondering when the last team to have a 37 win season made the playoffs. They don't, they are a lottery team.

Phil inherited a lottery bound team that was capped out and didn't have a pick.

OK. It's very inaccurate to call .451 close to .500. My bad.
My rounding was definitely inaccurate too. I forgot that in this context, 45.1 rounds down to 40.
You're seriously derailing the thread simply because you think .451 shouldn't be rounded to .500?

why round at all? state fact as fact. The Knicks played no where near .500 for about 90% of the season. That's about a magnitude better and a lot more accurate than trying to convince us that Phil inherited what you call close to a .500 team. It's blatantly misleading.

Seriously Bonn, the only person you are doing a disservice to is yourself. You're a deep stats guy. Numbers seem to be your thing. You wanna play fast and loose, all of your other stat based arguments start to come apart at the seems as everyone should ask themselves, "Well, is Bonn rounding for the hell of it to make a slant based argument or are his ideas based off of sound thought backed by hard evidence".

Yours to lose.

Bonn you seem to pretty hell bent on this point that Phil took over a team that was 500 or close to it and has done nothing but lose tons more games since. That 37 win team was so bad. They were 5-15 after 20 games and 22-40 with 20 games left. There was nothing about that team that was 500ish rounded or otherwise. They went 15-5 over the last 20 to make it somewhat interesting.... but please. That team had no future. None. Shump, JR, Amare, Tyson... where are they now? Argue Phil should have gotten more for them... fine. Argue away. To say Phil taken the Knicks backwards from that squad quoting win totals is to quote mreinman "disgusting"

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:lol the fact that layden can get another job is pretty crazy. minnesota can't help themselves but always find a way to screw something good up.

He was a really bad GM, but being part of the Spurs organization is a get out of jail free card. Just going through the motions there and being a "yes man" in that organization was bound to get him a new opportunity at some point. If he's an assistant GM for any other team (maybe with exception to golden state) he never gets interviewed for a GM job again.

Other than the Shandon Anderson and Howard Eisley contracts, I think a lot of what Layden gets blamed for in NY were actually Dolan's call. Camby trade. Ewing trade. Sprewell trade. All Dolan.

Yeah, I'd go so far as to say I don't think you can really judge any of the GMs/Presidents under Dolan. It's not an environment where anyone can thrive. If Phil has full authority, then the comment applies only to the ones before him, though.

if Phil had full authority Melo wouldn't be here for 5yrs $124,000,000 MILLION DOLLARS

Or maybe you're overrating his GM skills. When Phil signed here, I would have predicted
-He'd never go 49-115 in his first 2 full seasons
-He'd never trade Tyson Chandler for Jose Calderon
-He'd never give 8 mil per year to Aaron Afflalo
-He'd never get turned down by all top tier FAs when we had huge cap space
-And much more that I'm not even going to list.

I would have predicted....

- The 2013-14 Knicks roster was old, capped out and at a transition needed a rebuild and were in for a tough road, bad couple of years regardless of the President/GM/Coach
- Tyson Chandler was old, injury prone and becoming a malcontent and he was overvalued by Knicks fans on the trade market.
- Aaron Afflalo would be mediocre at best but with a stop-gap type contract would only be a Knick for 1-2 years with no long term Cap impact
- The Knicks would not sign a Top Tier FA given their roster last year and that there were really not an abundance available and further that they only had enough cap space to sign one Max player.

Bottom line is that the chances of an overnight Turn-Around in the NBA are very slim. Knicks need to continue to build/improve their roster without tying up long term cap space and ignore fans/media who keep looking backwards to point out failures or who expect immediate significant results in terms of W/L. This means not trading First Rounders and tying up long term Max contract cap space on guys who are not LBJ, Curry, Durant, Westbrook etc.

But he gave Melo a bigger contract than any of those four players have.
Regarding your comments about W-L, I realize that's what some here are saying now. But when the team he inherited was playing close to .500, I do not remember anyone saying we're probably going to be a .300 team for the next few years now that Phil is here. Also, even if you think Tyson was overrated, Phil actually added 2 years and $14 mil to our payroll just to have the privilege of putting Calderon in our backcourt.

maybe I'm not following the context, but are you saying that Phil inherited a .500 team? I don't think that's the case. He inherited a team that only won a few more games (37) than the team did this past year, a team that was capped out for another year and was looking down the barrel of 1 first round pick over 3 years.

they are on a roll... your attempt at logic cant stop that train

No, he's actually just arguing about whether .451 should be considered close to .500. There isn't an objective cut off for "close." So there's nothing to even discuss. I've clarified that I was considering .451 close to .500. If you don't consider it close, then it's just opinion. It would be like arguing over whether green is a nice color.

across the whole of the 2013-14 season, the Knicks were very consistently 10-15 games under .500; for me, they were also closer to a .400 team in actual play. The team finished the season a very well, winning 15 of their last 20 games or something crazy like that. That's not a .500 team or even close.

For parts of the season, they were a disaster and other parts a superb team. I was referring to the whole season. I know some people when analyzing teams will just look at a segment of the season but statistically I think of that as a bad practice.

Do your analysis ans show me, I just gave you my high level take on the season: the Knicks were very consistently 10-15 games under .500 for more than half of the season; the team finished the season very well, winning 15 of their last 20 games or something crazy like that.

What analysis are you asking for? I don't get the question.
Regardless, I clarified what I meant when I said close to .500. I was considering .451 close to .500. This whole discussion was not crucial to the thread by any means. I would have just said he inherited a .451 team instead of saying a close to .500 team if I knew it was going to be a big deal.

Bonn, you live and die by stats and now your round off in a way that's just very inaccurate. The team was no where NEAR a .500 team at ALL during the season, very far off. For a large bulk of the season they are 10 games UNDER .500, which is a LOT.

.500 team suggests a playoff team in most seasons, bottom feeder no doubt; I am wondering when the last team to have a 37 win season made the playoffs. They don't, they are a lottery team.

Phil inherited a lottery bound team that was capped out and didn't have a pick.

OK. It's very inaccurate to call .451 close to .500. My bad.
My rounding was definitely inaccurate too. I forgot that in this context, 45.1 rounds down to 40.
You're seriously derailing the thread simply because you think .451 shouldn't be rounded to .500?

why round at all? state fact as fact.

I already said if I knew it was going to be a big deal, I would have looked up the exact percentage and typed .451. I remembered they finished a few games shy of .500 and typed close to .500. If I were paid to do this for a living, I'd put more time into it.

Nalod wrote:Team that was .451 was one on the decline or at best not going anywhere. Shump in hindsight about hit his ceiling, JR, despite his talent was not a cornerstone that could be counted on. He was clowning. Tyson was grumpy, Priggs was 53 years old, and Bargs was lost.

Lets not lose sight over the exact state of the franchise at that time, not the retrospective winning %. The 54 game team was unsustainable and proved itself in the playoffs.

nixluva wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Nalod wrote:Team that was .451 was one on the decline or at best not going anywhere. Shump in hindsight about hit his ceiling, JR, despite his talent was not a cornerstone that could be counted on. He was clowning. Tyson was grumpy, Priggs was 53 years old, and Bargs was lost.

Lets not lose sight over the exact state of the franchise at that time, not the retrospective winning %. The 54 game team was unsustainable and proved itself in the playoffs.

Is this team headed anywhere? Briggs is not exactly known as a hater and didn't he just post that he thought we had the 3rd or 4th worst future in the league? If KP doesn't become a star, we really don't have much.

Did KP not do enough to have a good indication of whether he could become a star? The Records he set for a rookie weren't enough for you?

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/nyknicks/status/721029535903387650

Now let's be totally clear, THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING!!! So it's not right to focus only on what we have at this moment, as if we won't have any future picks or the ability to sign any FA's over the next few years. Also can we allow some time to see what Jerian and Willy will turn out to be??? Seems a bit premature to assume we know what will become of KP, Jerian and Willy. I'm still looking to see what further development will come from Gallo, Thanasis, Early, Trice and even Wroten. Home grown role players are gonna be important too.