Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Nalod wrote:Team that was .451 was one on the decline or at best not going anywhere. Shump in hindsight about hit his ceiling, JR, despite his talent was not a cornerstone that could be counted on. He was clowning. Tyson was grumpy, Priggs was 53 years old, and Bargs was lost.

Lets not lose sight over the exact state of the franchise at that time, not the retrospective winning %. The 54 game team was unsustainable and proved itself in the playoffs.

Is this team headed anywhere? Briggs is not exactly known as a hater and didn't he just post that he thought we had the 3rd or 4th worst future in the league? If KP doesn't become a star, we really don't have much.

****ing Unicorn.

Man up Bonn, if you don't think the team is headed anywhere, don't rely on BRIGG's option as maybe kinda sorta what you offer up as an opinion of what your opinion might be

Oh, I think at the moment we have poor positioning for the future since we're so dependent on 1 player and phil has gotten below average return on cap space.

very valid point. At the same time you and many others LOVED Houston's future when they signed Lin, traded for Harden for great value, then signed Dwight Howard. Also LOVED Denver's future after the trade. In 2011 NOBODY was talking about GSW being a future powerhouse as they were a 36 win team with a 2nd yr Steph Curry.

I LOVED Houston's future? I'm sure I thought they had a nice future, and they did have a nice run until this year.

Wasn't really the point I was looking to make. Your judgment wasn't wrong in feeling Houston was on a path to contendership. But there are to many variables that happen that changes the shape of things.

Oh, I think I misunderstood. Yeah, saying the team has poor positioning doesn't mean it's guaranteed to work out badly. It just means we're going to need much more luck and more unforeseeable factors working in our favor than most teams will need.

Its to early to claim what we have and don't have really. We added 2 rookies last yr and have a player coming from overseas that we don't know how good he is yet. There success or failure will shape things.

It's never too early to make projections. There's just more uncertainty within those projections if there's less data. It would be accurate to look at Grant's numbers and say they project poorly but that doesn't mean he will definitely be a bad player. There's a lot of uncertainty still. I think it would also be accurate to say we have fewer young players with numbers that project strongly than most teams do. Most teams have more guys on rookie contracts who have already demonstrated some success in this league than we do. If you don't want any uncertainty in projections, then you'd have to say all 30 teams are equal since we don't know what will happen.

Projections don't really hold much weight though.

We may not have a plethora of prospects. But especially in the East. There aren't many if any teams that currently have a prospect with the upside and potential of KP. All these teams would give up a TON of assets to acquire him from us. You wouldnt trade KP for all of Boston's draft prospects from 2012 u til now which add up to 9 or 10.

Projections are all we have. The only other option is to spend all day here describing what's happened in the past.
I think most Knicks fans are estimating KP's odds of becoming a superstar as higher than I am though. His advanced stats are much better than the average rookie, no doubt. So he would project as a much better than average NBA player. I'm going to take a guess though that only about 5% of rookies have who posted his kind of #s (like .102 WS48) end up becoming superstars. If we wanted to then combine that guess with eyeball information and if we also take into account his size, maybe we'll bump the odds up to maybe 10 or 15%. But the odds are heavily stacked against any one player becoming a superstar. There's also a small possibility (maybe 5%?) that he's one of those players that peak in their rookies years and go downward. A middle of the road prediction is probably that he'll be a very good player - like top 30 or 40.

Yet he still has more upside and displayed more skills then most prospects in the east. Failure rate is high in the NBA so there is a strong probablitlity that most players don't become stars. Counting all the prospects that all these other teams have.

Yeah but that's why any investor in any area will tell you diversifying is the best approach. Having six good prospects projects to a future that will probably be better than one excellent prospect.

Yet like I stated before. You wouldnt trade KP for all of Boston's draft prospects since 2012.

I agree that having multiple prospects can't hurt and could pay off huge. But also depends on circumstance. If you are sacrficing everything else in hopes that one or 2 of these prospects pan out. Then you not really diversifying.

Don't assume that. I'd have to look very carefully at all the players you're describing.
The thing is, even if that 10 or 15% chance of KP becoming a superstar actually does occur, it's not helpful if Phil doesn't surround him with excellent players. (Think KG in Minn.)

I agree. Luckily since KP is only 20 yrs old. We have a lot of time to try and acquire these excellent players.

Last off season we went in with one draft pick. And came away with 3 prospects with first round grades. And we hardly gave up anything truly worth while to do so. Not that this is going to happen every off season. But we acquired a lot of value. Even if they fail the value used to get them was excellent based off there talent and what we used to land them.

If the Spurs had to package Parker and or Ginobli for a blue chip prospect like Leonard then they wouldn't be in the same position. Instead they moved backup Hill who had a good playoff for a prospect Leonard who turned into a star. The value was huge. Had less downside.

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Nalod wrote:Team that was .451 was one on the decline or at best not going anywhere. Shump in hindsight about hit his ceiling, JR, despite his talent was not a cornerstone that could be counted on. He was clowning. Tyson was grumpy, Priggs was 53 years old, and Bargs was lost.

Lets not lose sight over the exact state of the franchise at that time, not the retrospective winning %. The 54 game team was unsustainable and proved itself in the playoffs.

Is this team headed anywhere? Briggs is not exactly known as a hater and didn't he just post that he thought we had the 3rd or 4th worst future in the league? If KP doesn't become a star, we really don't have much.

****ing Unicorn.

Man up Bonn, if you don't think the team is headed anywhere, don't rely on BRIGG's option as maybe kinda sorta what you offer up as an opinion of what your opinion might be

Oh, I think at the moment we have poor positioning for the future since we're so dependent on 1 player and phil has gotten below average return on cap space.

very valid point. At the same time you and many others LOVED Houston's future when they signed Lin, traded for Harden for great value, then signed Dwight Howard. Also LOVED Denver's future after the trade. In 2011 NOBODY was talking about GSW being a future powerhouse as they were a 36 win team with a 2nd yr Steph Curry.

I LOVED Houston's future? I'm sure I thought they had a nice future, and they did have a nice run until this year.

Wasn't really the point I was looking to make. Your judgment wasn't wrong in feeling Houston was on a path to contendership. But there are to many variables that happen that changes the shape of things.

Oh, I think I misunderstood. Yeah, saying the team has poor positioning doesn't mean it's guaranteed to work out badly. It just means we're going to need much more luck and more unforeseeable factors working in our favor than most teams will need.

Its to early to claim what we have and don't have really. We added 2 rookies last yr and have a player coming from overseas that we don't know how good he is yet. There success or failure will shape things.

It's never too early to make projections. There's just more uncertainty within those projections if there's less data. It would be accurate to look at Grant's numbers and say they project poorly but that doesn't mean he will definitely be a bad player. There's a lot of uncertainty still. I think it would also be accurate to say we have fewer young players with numbers that project strongly than most teams do. Most teams have more guys on rookie contracts who have already demonstrated some success in this league than we do. If you don't want any uncertainty in projections, then you'd have to say all 30 teams are equal since we don't know what will happen.

Projections don't really hold much weight though.

We may not have a plethora of prospects. But especially in the East. There aren't many if any teams that currently have a prospect with the upside and potential of KP. All these teams would give up a TON of assets to acquire him from us. You wouldnt trade KP for all of Boston's draft prospects from 2012 u til now which add up to 9 or 10.

Projections are all we have. The only other option is to spend all day here describing what's happened in the past.
I think most Knicks fans are estimating KP's odds of becoming a superstar as higher than I am though. His advanced stats are much better than the average rookie, no doubt. So he would project as a much better than average NBA player. I'm going to take a guess though that only about 5% of rookies have who posted his kind of #s (like .102 WS48) end up becoming superstars. If we wanted to then combine that guess with eyeball information and if we also take into account his size, maybe we'll bump the odds up to maybe 10 or 15%. But the odds are heavily stacked against any one player becoming a superstar. There's also a small possibility (maybe 5%?) that he's one of those players that peak in their rookies years and go downward. A middle of the road prediction is probably that he'll be a very good player - like top 30 or 40.

Yet he still has more upside and displayed more skills then most prospects in the east. Failure rate is high in the NBA so there is a strong probablitlity that most players don't become stars. Counting all the prospects that all these other teams have.

Yeah but that's why any investor in any area will tell you diversifying is the best approach. Having six good prospects projects to a future that will probably be better than one excellent prospect.

Yet like I stated before. You wouldnt trade KP for all of Boston's draft prospects since 2012.

I agree that having multiple prospects can't hurt and could pay off huge. But also depends on circumstance. If you are sacrficing everything else in hopes that one or 2 of these prospects pan out. Then you not really diversifying.

Don't assume that. I'd have to look very carefully at all the players you're describing.
The thing is, even if that 10 or 15% chance of KP becoming a superstar actually does occur, it's not helpful if Phil doesn't surround him with excellent players. (Think KG in Minn.)

I agree. Luckily since KP is only 20 yrs old. We have a lot of time to try and acquire these excellent players.

Last off season we went in with one draft pick. And came away with 3 prospects with first round grades. And we hardly gave up anything truly worth while to do so. Not that this is going to happen every off season. But we acquired a lot of value. Even if they fail the value used to get them was excellent based off there talent and what we used to land them.

If the Spurs had to package Parker and or Ginobli for a blue chip prospect like Leonard then they wouldn't be in the same position. Instead they moved backup Hill who had a good playoff for a prospect Leonard who turned into a star. The value was huge. Had less downside.