Knixkik wrote:

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.

NO ,My argument is clear and not all over the place, the kniocks are not set up to be consistently good.... this team is aging, old and we don't have many draft picks, we are set up to try to contend with miami when in reality we really were never better than Indy or chicago..

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 no current team has to.. the teams in the lottery now have nice young pieces to work with, adding another good piece will just move them a step closer to building a good team for the long run...

Maybe what the Knicks are doing won't work because we both know only 1 team wins each year.

The face that only one team can win has nothing to do with why the knicks course of action won't work.. what the knicks are doing won't work because It was senseless, not well thought out, and honestly has never worked before....

Jmpasq wrote:What would be the difference if The Knicks cleared everyone off the books like Miami did except for Wade and sign Lebron and another player in 2015. Why would it matter if he was drafted by the team.If the Miami trades Wade and builds around Lebron after 2015 is that the wrong way to do things because he wasnt drafted by them

here is where having wade in miami and pierce and rondo in boston helped.. they didn't have to gut their teams to get a very good player.. they were able to use their assets to add and build a team with those guys already there...

and no,building around lebron in that case won't hurt at all, again, as someone said, there are various ways to build a team, most if not all teams that won, utilized the draft well.. the knicks don't, and haven't.....

Knixkik wrote:

tkf wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

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.

NO ,My argument is clear and not all over the place, the kniocks are not set up to be consistently good.... this team is aging, old and we don't have many draft picks, we are set up to try to contend with miami when in reality we really were never better than Indy or chicago..

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 no current team has to.. the teams in the lottery now have nice young pieces to work with, adding another good piece will just move them a step closer to building a good team for the long run...

Maybe what the Knicks are doing won't work because we both know only 1 team wins each year.

The face that only one team can win has nothing to do with why the knicks course of action won't work.. what the knicks are doing won't work because It was senseless, not well thought out, and honestly has never worked before....

Melo is 29, chandler 30, amare 30, shumpert 23, Felton 28. The rest of the players are replaceable role players on short term contracts. If this team is old then so is miami and Chicago. And yes this team is set up to be consistently good because we will be a similar team for the next 2 years then have tons of cap space. Your whole argument with the Knicks still stems back to the Melo trade which is fine. People who look at this team's average age call it old. People who actually know the makeup of the team know better. This team has a prime of players far younger than that of the spurs, celtics, etc and in line with the heat.

And here you go talking about every team in the lottery having young pieces to build on to be good for the long run. Something you don't seem to understand is that of all the teams currently in the lottery, maybe 1 of them will be a contender in the next 5-7 years and only 2 or 3 will even be playoff teams. And based on the last decade, none of the current teams in the lottery will win a title in the next 8 or more years. But according to you every team who rebuilds this way becomes a contender in due time lol.

I really respect your opinion and know you feel strongly about it but I will just end by saying myself and recent history disagree. Could the Knicks be set up differently, absolutely. But they are set up better than most lottery teams and there's a reason for it. A reason so many teams have been bad for so long.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

tkf wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

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.

NO ,My argument is clear and not all over the place, the kniocks are not set up to be consistently good.... this team is aging, old and we don't have many draft picks, we are set up to try to contend with miami when in reality we really were never better than Indy or chicago..

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 no current team has to.. the teams in the lottery now have nice young pieces to work with, adding another good piece will just move them a step closer to building a good team for the long run...

Maybe what the Knicks are doing won't work because we both know only 1 team wins each year.

The face that only one team can win has nothing to do with why the knicks course of action won't work.. what the knicks are doing won't work because It was senseless, not well thought out, and honestly has never worked before....

Melo is 29, chandler 30, amare 30, shumpert 23, Felton 28. The rest of the players are replaceable role players on short term contracts. If this team is old then so is miami and Chicago. And yes this team is set up to be consistently good because we will be a similar team for the next 2 years then have tons of cap space. Your whole argument with the Knicks still stems back to the Melo trade which is fine. People who look at this team's average age call it old. People who actually know the makeup of the team know better. This team has a prime of players far younger than that of the spurs, celtics, etc and in line with the heat.

And here you go talking about every team in the lottery having young pieces to build on to be good for the long run. Something you don't seem to understand is that of all the teams currently in the lottery, maybe 1 of them will be a contender in the next 5-7 years and only 2 or 3 will even be playoff teams. And based on the last decade, none of the current teams in the lottery will win a title in the next 8 or more years. But according to you every team who rebuilds this way becomes a contender in due time lol.

I really respect your opinion and know you feel strongly about it but I will just end by saying myself and recent history disagree. Could the Knicks be set up differently, absolutely. But they are set up better than most lottery teams and there's a reason for it. A reason so many teams have been bad for so long.

The majority of the final 8 teams in this year's playoffs have recently been in the lottery (one or more appearances in past 5 years).

Like the knicks and the heat haha. And even more teams that have been in the lottery the past 5 years are still there. Lets see who can name more. I'll give you the Knicks and heat haha.

Jmpasq wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:If we had are 2014 Pick we would be set up really well to clean house. Its possible the Cavs would take Melo for the #1 pick as they need a SF and desperate to trade.Someone would give us a lottery pick if not Cle. Trade Chandler for picks. Trade anyone on the roster for picks. We end up being terrible in a talent laden 2014 draft get another Top 5 player to pair with the pick we just got. We then have 2 Top 5 picks with 4 and 5 years of controlled contracts. We have this years pick controlled for 3 more. We get at least 1 more 1st for Chandler thats 4 1st rounders with cheap controlled deals. At worst we have 9 players on the roster for 2015 Shumpert , Felton,Novak, 4 1st ronders 2 2nd rounders. We would be looking at 30 Million in cap space with 10 more coming when Felton and Novak come off. Lebron looks up and realizes he can cement his legacy bringing a title to NY he sees 2 young emerging stars with cheap deals young role players abound. Another Max player of his choice can be added in a year. Lebron signs , Cheap vets sign on 1 year deals, The Knicks win the title in 2016

Or lebron doesn't sign and we are in the lottery for the next 10years lol.

Or that yeah. Having young players controlled on rookie deals before getting the Max players is the best way to build a team. Not easy to work out though

It is absolutely the best way if it works out. Had we drafted holiday instead of hill and Hibbert instead of gallo maybe things would be different. But it is just so difficult to get right which in turn makes it the hardest way to build a champion, as recent history suggests.

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

tkf wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

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.

NO ,My argument is clear and not all over the place, the kniocks are not set up to be consistently good.... this team is aging, old and we don't have many draft picks, we are set up to try to contend with miami when in reality we really were never better than Indy or chicago..

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 no current team has to.. the teams in the lottery now have nice young pieces to work with, adding another good piece will just move them a step closer to building a good team for the long run...

Maybe what the Knicks are doing won't work because we both know only 1 team wins each year.

The face that only one team can win has nothing to do with why the knicks course of action won't work.. what the knicks are doing won't work because It was senseless, not well thought out, and honestly has never worked before....

Melo is 29, chandler 30, amare 30, shumpert 23, Felton 28. The rest of the players are replaceable role players on short term contracts. If this team is old then so is miami and Chicago. And yes this team is set up to be consistently good because we will be a similar team for the next 2 years then have tons of cap space. Your whole argument with the Knicks still stems back to the Melo trade which is fine. People who look at this team's average age call it old. People who actually know the makeup of the team know better. This team has a prime of players far younger than that of the spurs, celtics, etc and in line with the heat.

And here you go talking about every team in the lottery having young pieces to build on to be good for the long run. Something you don't seem to understand is that of all the teams currently in the lottery, maybe 1 of them will be a contender in the next 5-7 years and only 2 or 3 will even be playoff teams. And based on the last decade, none of the current teams in the lottery will win a title in the next 8 or more years. But according to you every team who rebuilds this way becomes a contender in due time lol.

I really respect your opinion and know you feel strongly about it but I will just end by saying myself and recent history disagree. Could the Knicks be set up differently, absolutely. But they are set up better than most lottery teams and there's a reason for it. A reason so many teams have been bad for so long.

The majority of the final 8 teams in this year's playoffs have recently been in the lottery (one or more appearances in past 5 years).

Like the knicks and the heat haha. And even more teams that have been in the lottery the past 5 years are still there. Lets see who can name more. I'll give you the Knicks and heat haha.

It's a lot closer than you think. Over the last 5 seasons, 23 teams were in the lottery at least once. Of those, 10 were in the playoffs this year and 13 were not.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

tkf wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

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.

NO ,My argument is clear and not all over the place, the kniocks are not set up to be consistently good.... this team is aging, old and we don't have many draft picks, we are set up to try to contend with miami when in reality we really were never better than Indy or chicago..

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 no current team has to.. the teams in the lottery now have nice young pieces to work with, adding another good piece will just move them a step closer to building a good team for the long run...

Maybe what the Knicks are doing won't work because we both know only 1 team wins each year.

The face that only one team can win has nothing to do with why the knicks course of action won't work.. what the knicks are doing won't work because It was senseless, not well thought out, and honestly has never worked before....

Melo is 29, chandler 30, amare 30, shumpert 23, Felton 28. The rest of the players are replaceable role players on short term contracts. If this team is old then so is miami and Chicago. And yes this team is set up to be consistently good because we will be a similar team for the next 2 years then have tons of cap space. Your whole argument with the Knicks still stems back to the Melo trade which is fine. People who look at this team's average age call it old. People who actually know the makeup of the team know better. This team has a prime of players far younger than that of the spurs, celtics, etc and in line with the heat.

And here you go talking about every team in the lottery having young pieces to build on to be good for the long run. Something you don't seem to understand is that of all the teams currently in the lottery, maybe 1 of them will be a contender in the next 5-7 years and only 2 or 3 will even be playoff teams. And based on the last decade, none of the current teams in the lottery will win a title in the next 8 or more years. But according to you every team who rebuilds this way becomes a contender in due time lol.

I really respect your opinion and know you feel strongly about it but I will just end by saying myself and recent history disagree. Could the Knicks be set up differently, absolutely. But they are set up better than most lottery teams and there's a reason for it. A reason so many teams have been bad for so long.

The majority of the final 8 teams in this year's playoffs have recently been in the lottery (one or more appearances in past 5 years).

Like the knicks and the heat haha. And even more teams that have been in the lottery the past 5 years are still there. Lets see who can name more. I'll give you the Knicks and heat haha.

It's a lot closer than you think. Over the last 5 seasons, 23 teams were in the lottery at least once. Of those, 10 were in the playoffs this year and 13 were not.

To make the next step they need 2 elite players surrounded by a good supp cast

I wouldnt invest in draft picks to rebuild a team
often these kids arent ready. It requires too much luck nowadays. Id rather invest in already proven stars