holfresh wrote:Phil said no to Lowry who is better than Dragic...Dragic played well in a penetrate and kick it out offense...Phil isn't running that here..The PG in the Triangle is a spot up shooter..We aren't paying 16-20 mil per for a spot up career 36% 3-point shooter...And Dragic is a 16-20 mil player???..

when did phil say no to lowry, he wasn't even hired yet,

knicks1248 wrote:

holfresh wrote:Phil said no to Lowry who is better than Dragic...Dragic played well in a penetrate and kick it out offense...Phil isn't running that here..The PG in the Triangle is a spot up shooter..We aren't paying 16-20 mil per for a spot up career 36% 3-point shooter...And Dragic is a 16-20 mil player???..

when did phil say no to lowry, he wasn't even hired yet,

I think articles came out that Phil was pulling strings as early as December before his eventual hire...People thought it was Dolan saying no...

holfresh wrote:Phil said no to Lowry who is better than Dragic...Dragic played well in a penetrate and kick it out offense...Phil isn't running that here..The PG in the Triangle is a spot up shooter..We aren't paying 16-20 mil per for a spot up career 36% 3-point shooter...And Dragic is a 16-20 mil player???..

Yes typically you want good talent at the SG and SF spots where you can have them passing and attacking from those spots. You don't want a PG who is ball dominant and dribbling all the time in this offense. However, the Triangle is a flexible offense. Wherever your teams talent is, then that's what you can exploit in the Triangle, but if you have no real talent at the PG spot you're OK as long as he's able to shoot, pass and defend the position. Basically what Fisher did. Now if your PG can do more then there are options for the PG to do more. The only difference is that the ball and player movement dictates that the PG doesn't have to hold the ball all the time for the offense to work. When he does have the ball he needs to make quick decisions to either pass, shoot, attack or set up a PnR or Give n Go. It's not really that limiting once a guard learns how to exploit the options in the offense. PG, SG and SF all have very similar options in this offense, so you want players who have good overall skills. A kid like D'Angelo Russell should be great in this offense because he's so versatile. Dragic should be able to play well in this system given his overall game.

nixluva wrote:

holfresh wrote:Phil said no to Lowry who is better than Dragic...Dragic played well in a penetrate and kick it out offense...Phil isn't running that here..The PG in the Triangle is a spot up shooter..We aren't paying 16-20 mil per for a spot up career 36% 3-point shooter...And Dragic is a 16-20 mil player???..

Yes typically you want good talent at the SG and SF spots where you can have them passing and attacking from those spots. You don't want a PG who is ball dominant and dribbling all the time in this offense. However, the Triangle is a flexible offense. Wherever your teams talent is, then that's what you can exploit in the Triangle, but if you have no real talent at the PG spot you're OK as long as he's able to shoot, pass and defend the position. Basically what Fisher did. Now if your PG can do more then there are options for the PG to do more. The only difference is that the ball and player movement dictates that the PG doesn't have to hold the ball all the time for the offense to work. When he does have the ball he needs to make quick decisions to either pass, shoot, attack or set up a PnR or Give n Go. It's not really that limiting once a guard learns how to exploit the options in the offense. PG, SG and SF all have very similar options in this offense, so you want players who have good overall skills. A kid like D'Angelo Russell should be great in this offense because he's so versatile. Dragic should be able to play well in this system given his overall game.

Nix, you know I'm against all this stuff..I always think you build your offense around your talent...The great coaches have done it that way and it has been successful..Phil had two great situations where his talent suited his offense..It's not easy to get the talent to suit system...Phil won't be here that long...

Phil and Fish will feel the pressure beginning next year...Crazy thing is, the coach should be making the style of play decisions..It's our GM making that call...

Alex Kennedy ‏@AlexKennedyNBA · 3h3 hours ago
Source says Lakers aren't willing to part with significant assets for Goran Dragic, since they can wait and just pursue him in the summer.

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:a few things...
1)why is there any assumption that we would get Plumlee? The Suns have said they need more size
2)Im not trading a pick for a guy I have to pay as well
3)they can take Calderon or any other mix of players on the current roster NO PICK

That basically means not adding anyone valuable through trades.
Do you want to keep both Melo and the player we draft. Objectively speaking, how likely is it that a rookie and a 13 year veteran will end up being in their primes at the same time?

Why does that matter? Why do both players have to be in their primes at the same time for a team to be good/great? I would rather a rookie grow up on potential playoff teams than to grow up on a team like the Magic or Minny.

StarksEwing1 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Yea we don't have the assets. We gave up TYSON, SHUMPERT & JR for nothing

In fairness there was no way anybody would take JR unless we attached shumpert or a pick, Im sure phil tried. Tyson was a situation where he was coming off a terrible year and his value was way down. I would ahve been happy with the 2 2nd rounders and larkin but calderon killed the trade especially since Tyson predictably bounced back in Dallas since thats the place he feel most comfortable

My feeling on this is NY has had a LONG standing problem of shoehorning guys into positions, dating back to Sprewell/Houston. We get SG's and try to make them small forwards. Take PG's and try to make them SG's, PF's to C's. It is a major pattern that I think leads to some major issues. Look at the best teams over the years. Theu had defined roles and put guys in positions they could excel. Teams like SA, Portland, GS, even ATL use their guys at consistent positions that best fit the player. They don't take Shroeder and try him at the 2, SA doesn't play Kawai at the 2 for long stretches, just once since like 1994 I want to see a well fitting, team, not just another collection of individuals.

Anyway back to my point, other than Tyson consistently playing C-aC-and he basically gave up on Woodson- Smith and Shump were shuffled so much here there was no way they would make it. Smith should have been the 6th man and Shump the starter. Instead we got them both shuffled between starting and bench and between the 2 and 3 for Smith and the 1,2, and 3 for Shump.

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:a few things...
1)why is there any assumption that we would get Plumlee? The Suns have said they need more size
2)Im not trading a pick for a guy I have to pay as well
3)they can take Calderon or any other mix of players on the current roster NO PICK

That basically means not adding anyone valuable through trades.
Do you want to keep both Melo and the player we draft. Objectively speaking, how likely is it that a rookie and a 13 year veteran will end up being in their primes at the same time?

Why does that matter? Why do both players have to be in their primes at the same time for a team to be good/great? I would rather a rookie grow up on potential playoff teams than to grow up on a team like the Magic or Minny.

Is the goal to win a championship? We have to compete against teams with several excellent players in their primes.

The goal is to create a sustainable winning environment where you compete for a championship every year. Winning the championship is the ultimate prize. Teams have won with young players and older stars. Spurs and Celtics are great examples. The Spurs have done it multiple times in different eras.