fishmike wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:fishmike wrote:martin wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:martin wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:martin wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:martin wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:fishmike wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:fishmike wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:SupremeCommander wrote:The more I think about it the more I'm okay with it. I think Galloway was a great find. It will really be hard to find another player as good as he was off the scrap heap. But do we really want to allocate $6 mil (or whatever) to him? I think thats fair but he's not really valuable anymore at that price.
Well, we don't really have anyone other than KP who is valuable at their salary.
you just come up for air? Maybe you have not been watching what has happened in FA.
We'll see. In the past you've always thought our teams would be a lot better than they were. What matters is whether Phil's spending buys a good team, not whether his spending is on par with other teams that have made mistakes this offseason. I'll wait til the actual models come out but this looks like a .470 team to me.
are you a robot incapable of just using your eyes and making a judgment? Thanks for bringing your thoughts to the table. Let us know what the models tell you and enough data to actually say something. As for me thinking the Knicks would be a lot better than they were that is not really true. I did think they would win 45 last season. They were what? 22-22 and trending upward. Melo got hurt and they tailspinned. Lance went out shortly after and that sir was the season. I suppose your models predicted that? Cmon man.
It makes more sense to use the eyeball test and metrics rather than only one. You're behind the thinking of every successful NBA team if you don't think evaluations should incorporate the metrics.
But he didn't say that, mostly he just said stop being such a robot and take your balls out and make a gut guess.
I did make a guess. I reserve the right to adjust the guess when new information comes out. I'm the only here who's even made a tentative prediction as far as I can tell. You ready to take your balls out?
47 wins, just to **** with you and match your .470. Already stated in another thread that I thought Cavs were a first tier team and then there was a dropoff to the next, which would include TOR, BOS, IND, NY. All based on the plus health of Rose, Noah.
What type of stat dude comes up with 47%? It's either 46% or 48% depending on how many wins you like. 
So you won't stick your balls out and make a real prediction
oh 47 is also my real prediction
Fair enough. That's a legit possibility but most of our key players would have to play better and/or be healthier than they were in recent seasons.
It's not just about health and playing better by stats though. Knicks are a balanced roster with players that compliment each other. I feel like the Knicks also have 3 "dogs" now, term used by Rose in his initial press conference. Rose, Melo on the O end and Noah on the D end. Those guys can carry you, lead you and prod others along (Melo could only do so much last year). KP will have had a full year in him, no feel out stage. Knicks have a bench this year, Gallo, DWill, Grant were not pieces that you could rely on from night-to-night or at all, Jennings makes everything much more aligned and easier (akin to what Randle magically did for our SL team the last few games). Coach is much better. And we have some wild card guys that have a bit of potential.
See Bonn? Roster thoughts...
Bonn your good with 38.5 wins? (sorry.. 38.54 to be exact. Don't want to hold you to something not accurate 
)
We'll say 39. I recognize the high upside if everything works out well, though. They could win 50+ but I think the downside is that the team is much worse than last year. I stay away from the extremes and think slightly below .500 is a middle ground prediction.
OK.. opinion time!So you admit the Knicks have a legit 50+ win potential. Did the team have that before the trades and FA signings? Are you saying you would prefer consistant but lower ceiling team vs. a higher ceiling but more risk?
Also keep in mind that the Knicks own their own first round picks moving forward, so while the downside may be lower there is upside in that as well
Legit 50? Yes, but I'd give it a very low probability. I'd prefer to be building toward a team that actually will attract the top FAs. You're right we still have our pick. But a lottery team with half it's cap spent on Melo, Noah, and Rose doesn't make sense. That's not moving us towards a roster that really could attract guys like KD, Curry, James, etc.. We'd be dependent on the lottery pick and KP becoming superstars. It's too low a probability. You can take a safer approach that gets you within a few years to a stable .600+ roster for many years and has more potential to attract legit top FAs but it requires be willing to add just 5 to 10 wins each year. Instead, we have hope of a 50 win team but a high probability of moving backwards and just hoping our lottery pick becomes a superstar. It's the hope trap. Most teams don't think of having your own draft pick as being solid insurance for a bad plan. It's risky insurance. What percentage of lottery picks become more than average starters? Not many. We're just not used to having our own picks.
7/7/2016 10:03 AM