tkf wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

tkf wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

tkf wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

tkf wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

knickstorrents wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:The bottom line +85% of all NBA champions drafted their core players

Im not going to list everyone going back but for example

Pippen Jordan Grant
Isiah Thomas Joe Dumare Bill Laimber
Hakeem
Kobe
Tim Duncan Parker Ginobli
Magic Johnson James Worthy etc
Larry Bird Kevin Mchale Robert Parrish

Go look back--its not even a debate. The draft is the most important process in building your team proven without a doubt

That type of quality is no longer available in the draft. None of those teams you mentioned have been assembled in the past decade. This is a thing of the past. If we were in the 90s I would agree with you, but not today.

NBA Champs past Decade:
Heat - Wade
Mavericks - Nowitzki
Lakers - Kobe
Spurs - Duncan, Parker, Ginobili
Pistons - the lone exception, but even then Tayshaun Prince was a starter and key component.

So how is Briggs point wrong???

Again you are talking about players drafted in the 90s and only San Antonio has more than one player drafted that consists of its championship core. A team built around wade does not win a title, he has 2 other players who joined him later on. Nowitzki didn't win until he had the right formula of guys such as Kidd chandler and Marion join via trade. Same with boston. Same with the lakers who only have won with Shaq and gasol. So to Briggs point it is accurate to say that 85% of teams who won drafted a core player but not their core players. Typically only 1/3 of their core consists of drafted player. It's the free agent signing and trades that allow them to win a title. Only exception in the past 15 years in San Antonio where their championship core can be attribute completely to building thru the draft. No one else even has half of their core drafted.

Looking at the following heat roster in 2006 when they won the finals.. please tell me who this team was built around.. and DO NOT SAY SHAQ!!!!

I highlighted the name to help you out there buddy...

G/F 5 Derek Anderson (Kentucky)
G/F 49 Shandon Anderson (University of Georgia)
C 30 Earl Barron (Memphis)
C 51 Michael Doleac (Utah)
SF 24 Jason Kapono (UCLA)
C/PF 33 Alonzo Mourning (Georgetown)
C 32 Shaquille O'Neal – Captain (LSU)
PG 20 Gary Payton (Oregon State)
SF/G 42 James Posey (Xavier (Ohio))
PF 25 Wayne Simien (Kansas)
SG 3 Dwyane Wade – Captain (Marquette)
PG
{Eddie Jones
55 Jason Williams (Florida/Marshall)
SF 1 Dorell Wright (South Kent Prep HS,
Lawndale, California)
F 40 Udonis Haslem (University of Florida)
F 8 Antoine Walker (University of Kentucky)
Chris Anderson N/A

They would not have won the title if it wasn't for Shaq. He was the difference maker. If you need proof of that, look at how wade did in the years between shaq and lebron.

oh cut it out!!!!!!!!

I swear to god you will go to any level no matter how ridiculous it may be to prove your point.. . Stop trying to justify how the knicks do business and I guarantee your argument will actually be reasonable.. come on man, are we going to have a serious debate or not?

Wade was a BEAST, that is why they won.. he averaged 25/5/5 on 50% shooting.. that is why they won... along with some nice calls from the refs, but whatever.. Guy was a monster.. for you to sell shaq as a difference maker is ridiculous

Yes Wade was a beast, but where was he the years after? Shaq was still a top NBA center a 20/10 guy. Superstar. If building around Wade was the answer they wouldn't have struggled to make the playoffs the following years. Not justifying how the Knicks do business, i agree they have made failures. But you make it seem like building thru the draft and rebuilding around young players is the answer, yet is has not worked in many, many years. Why don't you get that? Is it exciting? Yes. You want a Knicks team with young prospects you can be excited about, i get that. But let me know when it produces a championship team.

I am not saying there is just one answer but it is the way that has worked for many, many years....

let me break it down this way... If I am driving a car, obeying all the rules, stop at every stop sign, there is no guarantee I won't get into an accident, but the chances are greatly reduced if I do things a certain way... I mean some drunk idiot can run a stop sign and crash into me.. Now that doesn't mean I should trash driving the right way, but it sure gives me the best chance..

well over the course of history, valuing assets, not giving them away for aging stars, using your draft picks, signing and extending your picks, building around your picks and assets you acquire, young assets has been a way that has worked most of the time in NBA history.. we have posted many examples.... now are there exceptions to the rule.. sure, but why build your team upon the exception? is that really smart to do? You are only supporting this because of how the knicks are going about their business.. and really it doesn't make sense, you know it, but you just want it to be right.. and it doesn't work that way...

but where was he the years after? Shaq was still a top NBA center a 20/10 guy. Superstar.

so you are telling me since 2006 shaq has had a better career than wade?

Ok, I am done.. I'm out... someone please help this guy?

Please????

I'm trying to point out that building this way is NOW THE NORM, NOT THE EXCEPTION. Winning a title around a rebuilding effort is now the exception. Yes you gave me examples, all of which were from the 80s and 90s!!!!! Every other example you posted has yet to win a title. I am not supporting this because of how the Knicks are going about their business. I felt a team built the tradition way that we attempted, around Gallo, Lee, Chandler, Fields was not going anywere. I believe in the way the Heat, Celtics, Mavs, etc built their teams because they won. Spurs are the exception, and you are making them out to be the norm. The draft is a crapshoot and when young talent becomes available via trade it is incredibly hard to have the right assets at the right time to acquire that player. You are simply trying to justify why a team built with Melo vs. Gallo, chandler, and "assets" is not the way to do it, when you have no sustainable proof that the other direction was better. You are trying to prove it is the right way but showing examples from the 80s and 90s. I am showing you examples from right now. Who actually needs the help here in understanding? As long as Melo is on this team, you will try to prove otherwise. Only proof you have left is the unknown factor. Hold your hat on that and maybe someday it will prove you right.

I am not supporting this because of how the Knicks are going about their business. I felt a team built the tradition way that we attempted, around Gallo, Lee, Chandler, Fields was not going anywere.

it was headed to the playoffs!! until dolan came in with his wrecking ball, again, this is where patience and foresight comes in...... funny, the teams these guys were moved to and are major cogs are teams on the rise.. actually denver is currently better.. and maybe GS..

You are simply trying to justify why a team built with Melo vs. Gallo, chandler, and "assets" is not the way to do it, when you have no sustainable proof that the other direction was better. You are trying to prove it is the right way but showing examples from the 80s and 90s

I am showing you examples now.. the way we are building isn't working and hasn't worked... example of it not working.. NY knicks..

examples of the other way working

mavs
heat
lakers
spurs

And it is not just about winning rings, but being consistently good... you can throw in the Hawks for that matter... At some point if you don't win, you want to change up, but that does not include trying a starphuch pot luck....

tell me, what franchise has won, by making such a trade as we have? and not having a centerpiece on that team that they drafted? name one?

miami? NO

Lakers? NO

Spurs? NO

mavs? NO

Detroit is the only team, and remember that team was put together because they lost grant him and ended up with ben wallace.. so they didn't go the starphuch route.

you have nothing at all to support your argument..

I thought with you it is all about championships? You made that statement in another thread. It is about being consistently good, you are absolutely right. That is what the Knicks are set up to be. We had a better season than Atlanta had in their entire stretch, which is an example you just used. I don't see a problem with being good every year and trying to tweek things to become great. It sure beats purposely being bad and blowing it up for a chance to be good again. See now your argument is all over the place. Mine is clear: Winning championships built around your own draft picks and young prospects is extremely difficult to do. Zero teams will likely build a championship team starting with this draft class. Zero teams have won a title built around players picked in the past 9 years. Do you really want to wait another 9 years to have a chance to win a title? And that's if we get it exactly right and the rebuild is flawless. Maybe what the Knicks are doing won't work because we both know only 1 team wins each year. But if we aren't going to win, i would at least rather be good each year, have an outside chance, which is what we are in position to do now. But keep thinking rebuilding solves all problems when it has yet to work once in many years.

And not once have you heard me mention anyhting about starphucking. My favorite part about what we are doing is we get 2 more chances to try to get it right and if we don't we get to start from scratch in 2015. Isn't that what you are referring to with Atlanta? Thats what we are in position to do. Be good for a couple more years and if it doesn't work then try again.

when you have too many teams it dilutes the talent pool and reduces the skill level overall. it's one of the reasons there are so many tweeners in the league today. tweeners are not versatile they are stuck with the wrong skills in a league that pushes them down a position, from power forwards to small forwards from small forwards to shooting guards, from shooting guards to point guards. stern's solutions? loosen the rules around traveling and palming. take away hand checking. don't call moving screens.

the only way to succeed through the draft is by finding two-way players who have good character and coachability. talent will create the illusion of success in the regular season, but to win when it counts you need players who are complete two way players with the sort of passing skills that allow them to mesh more easily with others.

the spurs did the right thing by looking overseas for such players since the american system is hopelessly broken to such a degree that the draft is closer to a crapshoot than ever. greg oden, michael beasley, hasheem thabeet.

you have to have a gm, a coach, and a bunch of scouts who want the same things and can recognize the same things in prospective players.

Knixkik wrote:

dk7th wrote:it's getting harder to build a real team regardless of the draft or free agency because the league under stern has expanded beyond it's natural "borders," as it were, just like the roman or ottoman empires.

when you have too many teams it dilutes the talent pool and reduces the skill level overall. it's one of the reasons there are so many tweeners in the league today. tweeners are not versatile they are stuck with the wrong skills in a league that pushes them down a position, from power forwards to small forwards from small forwards to shooting guards, from shooting guards to point guards. stern's solutions? loosen the rules around traveling and palming. take away hand checking. don't call moving screens.

the only way to succeed through the draft is by finding two-way players who have good character and coachability. talent will create the illusion of success in the regular season, but to win when it counts you need players who are complete two way players with the sort of passing skills that allow them to mesh more easily with others.

the spurs did the right thing by looking overseas for such players since the american system is hopelessly broken to such a degree that the draft is closer to a crapshoot than ever. greg oden, michael beasley, hasheem thabeet.

you have to have a gm, a coach, and a bunch of scouts who want the same things and can recognize the same things in prospective players.

I agree you need to be resourceful. This is current CBA you can't spend too much money on role players. I fully believe the way to build in this current CBA is to clear cap space or have resources available by trade to acquire two stars (or players you preceive to be stars) and use the draft and bargain bin free agency to find role players who fit a role around those players. I truly believe we will have all of the tools to do that in 2 years.

And yes the draft is closer to a crapshoot than ever, which was my point in this whole thread. It makes it too difficult to get right.

+1

As far as Wade, yes he was the batman on the team, but please do not downplay the impact Shaq had, which goes back to my argument that no championship team is built around 1 person, more so 2 players that can dominate inside and outside (batman and robin) Shaq put up 18pts per game on 61% shooting that year.

And can we stop saying Dallas drafted Dirk!!! God, they were insanely lucky that the Bucks traded him. Dallas completely rapped the Bucks and Suns that year.

VCoug wrote:

Hersports85 wrote:We possibly can't narrow down winning championships based on drafting a star player. While history points to those who won a championship have drafted a "Superstar" It's 30+ years of data that also support the argument that that's not always the case, you can draft a "superstar" - Lebron James, Chris Paul, Kevin Garnett - and still fail without a combination of other things. Like someone else stated, it's a mixture of free agents, coaches, and drafted players. So in the bigger picture, there is no debate to be won, both sides are essentially correct lol.

As far as Wade, yes he was the batman on the team, but please do not downplay the impact Shaq had, which goes back to my argument that no championship team is built around 1 person, more so 2 players that can dominate inside and outside (batman and robin) Shaq put 18pts per game on 61% shooting that year.

And can we stop saying Dallas drafted Dirk!!! God, the were insanely lucky that the Bucks traded him.

What are you talking about? Of course Dallas drafted Dirk.

Hersports85 wrote:We possibly can't narrow down winning a championships based on drafting a star player. While history points to those who won a championship have drafted a "Superstar" It's 30+ years of data that also support the argument that that's not always the case, you can draft a "superstar" - Lebron James, Chris Paul, Kevin Garnett - and still fail without a combination of other things. Like someone else stated, it's a mixture of free agents, coaches, and drafted players. So in the bigger picture, there is no debate to be won, both sides are essentially correct lol.

As far as Wade, yes he was the batman on the team, but please do not downplay the impact Shaq had, which goes back to my argument that no championship team is built around 1 person, more so 2 players that can dominate inside and outside (batman and robin) Shaq put up 18pts per game on 61% shooting that year.

And can we stop saying Dallas drafted Dirk!!! God, they were insanely lucky that the Bucks traded him. Dallas completely rapped the Bucks and Suns that year.

Yeah most of these teams that acquired young players via draft or free agency were luck as much as skill. Milwaukee gift wrapped dirk, okc won the lottery by not winning the lottery in 07, and a team like the pacers got their best players in the mid first round. We don't have the luck to rebuild. But we can however find a good player with the 24th pick just like we did with shumpert at 17 and Indiana did with Hibbert at 17.

NardDogNation wrote:

Hersports85 wrote:We possibly can't narrow down winning a championships based on drafting a star player. While history points to those who won a championship have drafted a "Superstar" It's 30+ years of data that also support the argument that that's not always the case, you can draft a "superstar" - Lebron James, Chris Paul, Kevin Garnett - and still fail without a combination of other things. Like someone else stated, it's a mixture of free agents, coaches, and drafted players. So in the bigger picture, there is no debate to be won, both sides are essentially correct lol.

As far as Wade, yes he was the batman on the team, but please do not downplay the impact Shaq had, which goes back to my argument that no championship team is built around 1 person, more so 2 players that can dominate inside and outside (batman and robin) Shaq put up 18pts per game on 61% shooting that year.

And can we stop saying Dallas drafted Dirk!!! God, they were insanely lucky that the Bucks traded him. Dallas completely rapped the Bucks and Suns that year.

I agree with the general gist of your post but that Dirk comment is flat out wrong. The Mavericks could've outright selected Dirk but did the prudent thing and had the Bucks select him so they could bring Dirk in at a cheaper paygrade and with additional assets to boot. Either way you cut it, Dirk was the guy they intended to draft and they did just that. I wish the Knicks had the insight to have done that with guys like Gallinari and Iman, who were both drafted higher than most thought they should go. Wouldn't it have been nice to have traded our 6th pick for the Nets' 10th pick and 21st pick in the 2008 draft? We would've still walked away with Gallo and had the opportunity to draft Ryan Anderson, Courtney Lee, Serge Ibaka, Nicolas Batum, George Hill, Nikola Pekovic, Omer Asik, DeAndre Jordan or Goran Dragic. Wouldn't it have been nice in the 2011 draft to have selected Kenneth Faried with the 17th pick and then bought the Nets/Bulls pick at 27/28 to pick Iman Shumpert who many drafts had being drafted late in the first round/early second round? Knicks management historically, especially under Walsh, has lacked any imagination or skill in maximizing their leverage in any given situation.

True, they could've drafted him, but the plan was to obtain 2 first round picks to flip both into Dirk and Nash. Without obtaining Nash, Dirk was not a set pick. Dallas traded away their whole back court and was reported to draft a Pg first. Without the Bucks being idiots and trading away their 2 picks, I don't think the Mavs sign Dirk, I think they go with a point guard or shooting guard who can control the floor and score.

But I totally agree. I wish the Knicks could get deals like this. I just want to outright win one situation without any questions.

VCoug wrote:

Hersports85 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Hersports85 wrote:We possibly can't narrow down winning a championships based on drafting a star player. While history points to those who won a championship have drafted a "Superstar" It's 30+ years of data that also support the argument that that's not always the case, you can draft a "superstar" - Lebron James, Chris Paul, Kevin Garnett - and still fail without a combination of other things. Like someone else stated, it's a mixture of free agents, coaches, and drafted players. So in the bigger picture, there is no debate to be won, both sides are essentially correct lol.

As far as Wade, yes he was the batman on the team, but please do not downplay the impact Shaq had, which goes back to my argument that no championship team is built around 1 person, more so 2 players that can dominate inside and outside (batman and robin) Shaq put up 18pts per game on 61% shooting that year.

And can we stop saying Dallas drafted Dirk!!! God, they were insanely lucky that the Bucks traded him. Dallas completely rapped the Bucks and Suns that year.

I agree with the general gist of your post but that Dirk comment is flat out wrong. The Mavericks could've outright selected Dirk but did the prudent thing and had the Bucks select him so they could bring Dirk in at a cheaper paygrade and with additional assets to boot. Either way you cut it, Dirk was the guy they intended to draft and they did just that. I wish the Knicks had the insight to have done that with guys like Gallinari and Iman, who were both drafted higher than most thought they should go. Wouldn't it have been nice to have traded our 6th pick for the Nets' 10th pick and 21st pick in the 2008 draft? We would've still walked away with Gallo and had the opportunity to draft Ryan Anderson, Courtney Lee, Serge Ibaka, Nicolas Batum, George Hill, Nikola Pekovic, Omer Asik, DeAndre Jordan or Goran Dragic. Wouldn't it have been nice in the 2011 draft to have selected Kenneth Faried with the 17th pick and then bought the Nets/Bulls pick at 27/28 to pick Iman Shumpert who many drafts had being drafted late in the first round/early second round? Knicks management historically, especially under Walsh, has lacked any imagination or skill in maximizing their leverage in any given situation.

True, they could've drafted him, but the plan was to obtain 2 first round picks to flip both into Dirk and Nash. Without obtaining Nash, Dirk was not a set pick. Dallas traded away their whole back court and was reported to draft a Pg first. Without the Bucks being idiots and trading away their 2 picks, I don't think the Mavs sign Dirk, I think they go with a point guard or shooting guard who can control the floor and score.

But I totally agree. I wish the Knicks could get deals like this. I just want to outright win one situation without any questions.

You can think whatever you want but you can't change the facts. Despite the fact that Milwaukee technically chose Dirk that was clearly a Dallas pick since the trade happened during the draft right after the picks were made.

"Think" ... Clearly i said it was being "reported" ... that was a fact. But I agreed, they could've chose Dirk. The agreement was made before the draft. That's why Dallas traded J.Kidd, J Mashburn and their starting SG. If the Bucks didn't agree, it was reported that Dallas was looking to upgrade their back court.

Anyway, but clearly, it's a combination of drafting well and free agency that makes a champion.