Posted by bitty41:

I hate the million quote thing so

Where do you get the idea that winning in's part of your mindset? Winning is clearly part of the mindset. But the goal is to get in position to try to win 50 and 60 games. Instead of eking out 3 or 4 more wins out of a roster that has proven it is a failure. It's long-term vs. short-term. It's been said over and over that if the right player comes along and we can acquire them, then there is no waiting for 2010. But I just don't feel management felt Sessions, Boozer, Odom, Ariza, Miller etc were the type of players that were worth erasing 2010. Remember if there is no Lebron in 2010 you can still acquire lesser players, but now you can put together a team with the cap space you have. Instead of mid-leveling yourself into oblivion.

Where do I get the idea that winning isn't apart of the mind-set? Have you not watched a game recently winning just isn't apart of this team's landscape. Maybe this team will shock me this year but with the current squad I just don't see a whole lot of winning taking place.

How is cap space guaranteeing 50 or 60 wins? That's where the disconnect is happening you can have a cap of zero and still sign no one of worth, still lose a ton of games.

Stop equating cap space = guaranteed big-name free-agent signing(s). Philly had a nice cap situation last summer and spent money on Elton Brand who spent most of the season injured. Because for every Steve Nash you have a Tracy McGrady signing in which a guy either does nothing or spends most of his time injured. Drafts have always been the only surefire way of improving a team. You either use high lottery picks as bargaining chips or you have to draft at least an all-star caliber player.

LA
SA
Clev
Orlando

All have built there teams around their draft choices. So it is very disconcerting that Walsh made the choices he did. That's how teams rebuild through the draft, making wise choices, and trying to acquire higher or in some cases more picks.

We aren't winning because our team stinks and we are rebuilding one of the worst organizations in the history of sports. But this has nothing to do with your quote "winning isn't part of our mindset". This seems to imply that D'Antoni and Walsh aren't worried about winning. They are clearly worried about winning. They just understand that it's going to take time. And that going year to year is not the solution. Instead get yourself in position to build long-term

Who said cap space is a guarantee. Why do people keep implying that those who believe in cap space think it's some kind of guarantee. I've actually gone out of my way to reiterate over and over again that if no one wants to come here or if Walsh signs the wrong players then he didn't take advantage of a strong situation. Of course there are no guarantees of even 30 or 40 victories. What is guaranteed is if you continue to build on a bad/mediocre roster with mediocre talent obtained through the MLE you will go no where.

There are three avenues for improving your team. The draft, free agency and trades. In the past we have traded draft picks and ingored this avenue. We were always over the cap so the only free-agents we could sign were mediocre role players. We were in a position of weakness with trades because everyone of our players had long overpaid contracts. WE could take advantage of none of these avenues.

Today we not only kept our picks we traded for a second round pick. We used the draft. No guarantee that Walsh made the right selections but he is in the game. The day of reckoning on the draft picks is coming but is not here yet. By getting under the cap in the next two years we are putting ourselves in position to obtain top tier talent or replace the core of our team. Again, no guarantee of success, but we are in the game. WE now have short term reasonable contracts and players that can play a role on other teams without creating havoc. No guarantee Walsh will pull the trigger or make the right trade but at least we are getting into this game. TYhese were steps that all had to be taken and completed before you can reasonably think you were in position to turn this around. Lottery teams without stars are not in position to foregoe 1 or 2 of these. Lottery teams without stars must get in the game in all 3 areas in order to give themselves as many options as possible to get that star. There are no shortcuts. Without it you are limited. See the Thomas/Layden years for evidence.

Posted by eViL:

i asked this question in another thread and got no response -- can someone name a GM, who took over a team that was consistently in the bottom of the standings, AND capped out for three seasons past his hiring date, that turned the team around in less than two full seasons? anyone?

Of course this was ignored........Maye they are still doing research.

Posted by eViL:

i asked this question in another thread and got no response -- can someone name a GM, who took over a team that was consistently in the bottom of the standings, AND capped out for three seasons past his hiring date, that turned the team around in less than two full seasons? anyone?

Evil come on man who has time to research this type of stuff. But Portland would be a good starting point. They were in salary cap hell and two years later they were among the best in the Western Conference. Orlando spent a ton of money on McGrady and Grant Hill only to see them spend most their time on the injury reserve list. Now they are among the best in the league. Philly was in a shyty situation after the Larry Brown Iverson team broke apart. They move Iverson and make it the playoffs the following years. Now I don't know these teams specific cap situations down to every dollar but they weren't good yet in less then 2 years these teams were making solid strides. That's all anyone is asking for we aren't talking about titles but just some movement towards the positive anything a solid draft pick, a playoff spot, a full season of competitiveness.

The Gallo pick definitely could set the franchise back for alot of years. The Knicks had the sixth pick in a draft that many have said was the deepest of all time and they took a risk when they didn't have to. The Knicks won 23 games the year they drafted Gallo. You don't take risks or try to get tricky when you are in that situation. As far as a coach adapting his system to the roster look at Pat Riley and how he coached the Lakers versus the Knicks. Could he have played Showtime basketball with the Knicks roster? In regards to D'Antoni, he is in NY for 2 documented reasons, more money, Donnie Walsh not placing any expectations that he adapt his coaching style to emphasize more defense.

Bippity

You know I've been grief stricken since Zach left and I felt the franchise died a little when they made that trade.

I hope Gallo works out but I know he will never be the sixth best player in the 08 draft. If he is top 15 I will be surprised. The Riley comment was in response to Blob saying D'Antoni shouldn't adapt his style to his players strengths. D'Antoni had the perfect roster for his style in Phoenix but that was not the case last year or this year. I agreee that he has passion and wants to win but he has shown that he is adverse to changing. The roster that was most suited to his system was Chicago's. The reported reason he came to NY was that unlike Chicago, NY was not making any demands regarding his system and defense.

Posted by eViL:

Posted by bitty41:

Posted by eViL:

i asked this question in another thread and got no response -- can someone name a GM, who took over a team that was consistently in the bottom of the standings, AND capped out for three seasons past his hiring date, that turned the team around in less than two full seasons? anyone?

Evil come on man who has time to research this type of stuff. But Portland would be a good starting point. They were in salary cap hell and two years later they were among the best in the Western Conference. Orlando spent a ton of money on McGrady and Grant Hill only to see them spend most their time on the injury reserve list. Now they are among the best in the league. Philly was in a shyty situation after the Larry Brown Iverson team broke apart. They move Iverson and make it the playoffs the following years. Now I don't know these teams specific cap situations down to every dollar but they weren't good yet in less then 2 years these teams were making solid strides. That's all anyone is asking for we aren't talking about titles but just some movement towards the positive anything a solid draft pick, a playoff spot, a full season of competitiveness.

that's the thing. it would take a lot of research to find the answer because the type of turnaround walsh is expected to do with the knicks is so uncommon. it's the product of this crazy restrictive CBA. not saying the guy can't be criticized. of course he can, and is often. me personally, i'm withholding judgment until his second trade deadline. that would give him two offseasons, two drafts, and two deadlines to prove himself. i think that's fair, but don't let that stop you from questioning his plan. it's not like you are being completely unreasonable.

Brandon Roy(Portland's star) was on that roster before they started their rebuild. Rebuilds are much easier to do when you already have that star to build around. If the Lakers decided to rebuild their roster again around Kobe my bet is that they could be back in elite status in a year or two. Stephon, Zach and Jamal were our stars before we began our rebuild. So now we need to be in position to find our "Brandon Roy". Not easy to do or every team would be competing every couple years. The question now is Gallo our Brandon Roy? If he is, then you will see progress in short order adn once again the complaining was simply impatience and not anything substantial. IF Gallo continues to be a nonfactor than of course you hold Walsh accountable. But it takes time to judge most draft picks. Time, New Yorkers refuse to give. Time that has prevented this team from rebuilding since Patrick left.

Once again all our conversations come down to the draft picks. If GAllo and Hill were proven up and cominng players right now there would be no feeling of gloom and doom. But unfortunately Gallo did not play much last year due to injury and Hill is a project that is yet to play an NBA game. Do you hold a GM/Coach accountable for drafting guys that need time? Do you close the book on these two already? Do you accuse a GM/Coach of not wanting to win because their rookies aren't ready made rookie of the year types? Or do you look at the overall plan, see if it's sound and then show the proper patience to see if it pans out. If Gallo and Hill turn out to be legit and we are able to sign 1 or 2 or 3 free-agents that really help us get back into the mix then the only reason we are complaining is because of our impatience. Only time will tell if Walsh will be successful with "his plan". I understand this, and this is why I'm not in hysterics in year two.

This is what happens after a summer of little activity. Fans are anxious and these preseason games are not giving much hope. I do like the improved defense, which is what thougt would happen with the Addition of a shotblocker. It is too soon to make judgments at time point. I will save my evaluation of the team until about 30 games in. By then we should have a better idea regarding the skill level of the team and individual players.

Posted by Olbrannon:

I don't see where all the criticism is founded really. I watched that game again
(thanks to Cosmic). Throught the first part of the game up to the middle of the
third period the Knicks slugged it out with the Sixers pretty well. Creating turnovers
and frustrating Brand so much that he started throwing elbows for which he should
have been ejected possibly T'd. Nate stripped him down low twice and the steal and breakaway by Darko should have had the Garden on their feet.

And as for missing...appparently D'Antoni is running the <insert suitable explitive> them
in practice. For all the poor shooting they displayed the defensive intensity was sufficient that the Sixers coaches decided that Jrue Holiday would sit this one out so his fragile psyche(confidence) wasn't killed.

For a stretch there the defense not only looked good, it looked stifling. The line-up that included Chandler, Nate, Gallo, Jeffries/Darko was borderline awesome. It only lasted about a quarter but it was an encouraging sign. If Gallo and Chandler develop you are looking at a line-up that for the first time since(I can't even think of when) that has the potential to play d and put points on the board. If they had hit a reasonable amount of their shots they would have blown that game open.

I don't know what is wrong with people. We spend all summer long talking about how we stink. How we are a 30 win team. And then as soon as the team comes out and looks like a 30 win team we whine about it. We are who we are.