BRIGGS wrote:
difference between good team and knicksGood team
Warriors
Draft players. Also have spent millions for extra 2 nd rounders
Do not trade draft picks for players
Use free agency to acquire other players
Just one example. Could throw the Spurs in there-- could throw Boston in there
Is San Antonio giving up 2 lottery picks Znd 2 additional draft picks for anyone? No they never do
Draft opportunistic trade and straight free agency
How you can clearly watch so much game footage and spend so much time talking about the NBA, and yet not actually understand the market based dynamics behind it, is just a little bizarre at times. It only increases my general belief, that in the entire world, sex is the most valuable commodity, but critical thinking skills is likely the rarest of all commodities.
"Good" pro sports teams make sound MARKET BASED DECISIONS given the time and place. And that's it. Well run sports teams that reap the benefits of success will tend to have 2-4 consecutive elite drafts in succession. And that's it. Progressive teams will jump on trends before they become marketplace norms. And that's it.
There is nothing wrong with trading draft picks for players. In any league. The problem is most of your ideas are horrifically poor market based decisions in regards to trading draft picks for players. Thus, eventually seeing the failure of these scenarios, you've come to the conclusion that trading draft picks for players is bad. Unless you want Eric Bledsoe. Or Greg Monroe. Or whomever when you change your mind again.
Trading Tim Hardaway Jr for the draft pick that became Jerian Grant was a GOOD MARKET BASED DECISION. It did not work out. And sometimes that happens. But over the long haul, against the average, your odds are better to pan out a player if you do that five times, and maybe two times, that Jerian Grant type player works out. What you don't do is take a look at the 3 times that don't work and say thats proof that it will never work ever. The goal is never ABSOLUTES, the goal is increasing your opportunity. And increasing your odds of success by accepting market based forces and league trends as limiting markers on actual personnel decisions.
A good market based decision is NOT A GUARANTEE of any kind of return. It simply means a sound methodology is in place within the vision of that franchise.
Being progressive, an example is Bill Belichick and the Patriots. He has had some pretty horrible drafts. He did however draft Rob Gronkowski and Aaron Hernandez in the same draft. Before the league trended towards "move tight ends" and using hybrid TE/WR types to spread the field and stretch defenses. Also to exploit red zone matchups. Belichick also locked in both players to long term team friendly deals before the league trends caught up and the market value of move TEs jumped in salary against the entire marketplace. Aaron Hernandez took most of his snaps at WR, however he was paid against market for TE. This was a tremendous value for a 4th round pick.
It was a GOOD MARKET BASED DECISION. Sadly, the dude was a murderer and went to jail and killed himself because he was ashamed of having another dudes junk in his mouth. Sometimes it just doesn't work out.
Mike D'Antoni and Daryl Morey saw the value of the three ball long before the rest of the league caught up. The "space and pace" game now commonplace was broke into the league by guys like D'Antoni. That's progressive. It's just that that NBA personnel structure is too difficult to build rapidly or adjust rapidly like the NFL.
The Warriors buy 2nd round picks at high dollar values because 2nd round picks don't require guaranteed money. Late first round picks do, they are required to get 2 years of guaranteed money. And teams riding the edge of the cap and over it like the Warriors, that space is critical. The difference in talent from a very late first round pick to an early 2nd rounder is negligible. But the player control and cap implications are vast.
I've seen you discuss "Moneyball" and saying the Knicks should "split" an asset into smaller pieces and "DO A MONEYBALL" Which makes zero sense. Moneyball was about market inefficiencies against the current marketplace. Beane valued On Base Percentage and derided the idea of steals because it means you run into outs ( "I pay you to get on first base, not get thrown out at second base") When defense was undervalue, Beane went after defense. When relief pitchers were undervalued as churn trade assets ( when he sent Billy Taylor to the Mets), he did that. When cost controlled guys like Addison Russell, he felt they were overvalued against length of team control and cost control to actual pan out rate, he traded him for Jon Lester and Jeff Samardja.
Bill Belichick kept trading back out of the first round draft after draft, stockpiling picks and gaming the NFL's compensation pick system. One year, he traded for Randy Moss and Wes Welker. This past year, he traded for Brandin Cooks. He traded UP, twice in the same draft for Chandler Jones and Donta Hightower. There is no one absolute dogmatic approach.
Just like a good team takes what the defense gives you, you take what the market gives you.
In the NBA, its not hard to make the good market based decision if all one cares about is winning games. But lots of teams don't focus on that . On many teams, owners focus on proving how smart they are and try to run their own teams, and do so into the ground. GMs just want to save their jobs, burning the entire future for the next year or 6 months of survival. Players want to get their next shoe deal, so subvert actually playing team ball. Many elements consider marketing over winning.
You come to each situation and opportunity and ask yourself if it's a good market based decision. Then you just do the best you can, each time ,and hope that series of good decision adds up.
Warriors trading Monta Ellis for Andrew Bogut was a good market based decision. They traded a poor defender for a good one. They traded small for big. They traded low positional value for high positional value. They valued rim protection, then a tougher commodity to find, over individual shot creation, which is not easy to find, but at the time, not as rare as solid rim protection.
Trading 4 draft picks to clear bad contracts and get Andre Igoudala was controversial at the time, but a good market based decision. He could defend. He could give enough offense to balance out his game. He was an Olympian. He was a solid locker room guy.
Trading their 3.5 million allotment to get Jordan Bell, someone who could provide rebounding and interior defense, was a good market based decision. The team was capped out. Their weakness, if any, is in the middle of the floor. They don't need more scoring, they need role player who can bang it out.
Learning takes humility. You see a team making decisions without the context of why something is a good market based decision or not. You think you know, but you don't. You are content to tell everyone you do know and ignore anyone who disagrees with you and tell them they are wrong. I pity you Briggs. Because I pity anyone who stays willfully ignorant for something as disposable as pride. Internet pride no less.
The Knicks dysfunction as a franchise is like a fat person who needs to lose weight or they are going to die soon. You don't gain weight or lose weight in one big move, you do so in a SERIES OF SMALL DECISIONS EVERY SINGLE DAY. When you face a morning and you'd rather take the short term gratification, and you decided to be disciplined instead. That doesn't matter if you do it once and cave the 48 other mornings and eat a plate of nachos. Baby steps. You can climb a freaking mountain with baby steps. You can build an impenetrable wall, one brick at a time. You can fill a giant swimming pool, one drop at a time. When people say it's "process", there is a reason for it.
There are no magic beans here. You don't plant them in the ground and have them sprout up. Your failure to understand this is why you believe the Knicks can make one trade, or two trades, in one offseason, and garner 4-5 assets at once to instantly rebuild a team. Or expect a rookie to produce at historic level. Or expect players to play in a way not shown as likely by their career trends.
No roadmaps. Just one solid step at time. You don't care, you won't listen. It's all about you, all time. I didn't write this for you. I wrote this for everyone else.
