Posted by Pharzeone:

Posted by BlueSeats:

I think two issues need to be separated: Gallo the pick vs Gallo the player.

The irony is that the guys most convinced Gallo was a bad pick are the ones most strident that he needs the most minutes, not because it's what's best for him, but so as to sooner declare themselves right.

Lets just say,for arguments sake, that he was an awful pick, he's damaged goods with little athleticism or skills, and he'll never amount to anything in this league.

If that is your point, and we accept that and let you win that war, then is it still mandatory that he get major minutes every night? Or, if since he's a marginal project on the way to becoming damaged goods would it then be okay if the coaching staff brought him along slowly?

What if management is in the middle and aren't quite ready to declare him a bust, but nor are they ready to declare him a cornerstone - then would it be okay for them to try him in different situations (starting vs off the bench) to see how his game and his back respond, and adjust accordingly?

If the kid is struggling physically, emotionally or whatever, at what point isn't it a requirement that they destroy him as quickly as possible?

Blue you could also say that the irony is that most people who said that Walsh and D'Antoni picked the guy that they thought was the BPA is ok with him not getting the minutes to hold off from being told that they were wrong. I keep hearing give him years to find himself and his game in a league and environment that doesn't really allow for any player to do that. Once more he was not suppose to be a project player. Wasn't he the player with extensive experience in the EL. Now that stance has been changed and he is now a project player. I seem to remember that there were players that most agree had a higher risk and higher reward potential but were considered projects. For pete's sake we had guys ready to give him starting duty at the beginning of the season. Rookies are on a 2 year deal with teams with options to bring them back. So they basically have only two years to show they are worthy to be brought back. Everything is relative in life. It just depends on what stance you take when you wake up.

Also, we are now going into the 9th month of discussing whether or not his back is an issue for what was first described as a non-issue by this organization and many on this forum. Remember an issue that didn't require surgery or real concern. It now appears to be a crutch that only seems to be used as a means of convenience to dismiss concerns about this young man's game. So at what point do we stop using the injury to properly evaluate his performance? The 10th month, the 11th or perhaps the 15th month? Suppose he as healthy as he will get, what then?

Posted by Rookie:

"Gallo needs to play because he is the future of the Knicks. Not Hughes he isn't the future of the Knicks he just another hired gun looking to get his."

Maybe MDA has seen enough to determine that he is too far behind this season to contribute and, even then, he could be a long term project. As far as his being 'the future', I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe that. Sure, he
has a nice stroke but he may never be an NBA talent. Like MDA said, that's what the summer is for. Gallo should know by now what he needs to do to play in the NBA, now he needs to go and do it and come back next season ready to impress.

Gallo's not a project to the guys who didn't want him, they expect immediate results even tho Donnie & MDA both said he'd be a work in progress & it would take a while to really get a sense of the talent & upside they saw in him during the draft & scouting process... projects are the players that they did want, because it gives them leeway for error.

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by TMS:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by TMS:

Posted by tkf:

Posted by BlueSeats:

I think two issues need to be separated: Gallo the pick vs Gallo the player.

The irony is that the guys most convinced Gallo was a bad pick are the ones most strident that he needs the most minutes, not because it's what's best for him, but so as to sooner declare themselves right.

Lets just say,for arguments sake, that he was an awful pick, he's damaged goods with little athleticism or skills, and he'll never amount to anything in this league.

If that is your point, and we accept that and let you win that war, then is it still mandatory that he get major minutes every night? Or, if since he's a marginal project on the way to becoming damaged goods would it then be okay if the coaching staff brought him along slowly?

What if management is in the middle and aren't quite ready to declare him a bust, but nor are they ready to declare him a cornerstone - then would it be okay for them to try him in different situations (starting vs off the bench) to see how his game and his back respond, and adjust accordingly?

If the kid is struggling physically, emotionally or whatever, at what point isn't it a requirement that they destroy him as quickly as possible?

you hit the nail on the head with that one.. Although I am one who wants to see him play now, I want that because I feel he can contribute and it will help his development. The funny thing is this, guys like Javele Mcgee and Bayless. .UK board favorites of most, have very similar if not less impressive stats than gallo,and pretty much play around the same amount of minutes. In Mcgee's case, the wizards are one of, if not the worst team in the league... why is he just getting 15mpg? Briggs was very high on this guy? is he a bust? Is there something wrong with him?

i don't get the double standard that's being placed on Gallo's development over other NBA rookies drafted the same year... when u compare his minutes to most of the others he's just about in the middle & this after missing a good portion of the season w/a back injury.

Are you comparing him to other draftees chosen in the top of the draft or are you taking the entire draft as a whole? If you look at the top 10 picks, Gallinari and Joe Alexander are bringing up the rear and not anywhere close to where the other players are in terms of development. That's not a double standard, that's just fact.

i don't look at the top 5 guys picked, we wouldn't have had any of them anyway... that's not a double standard, that's just fact.

i usually try & compare Gallo to the guys that most of u were saying we should take over Gallo when it was our turn to pick... so far Eric Gordon has distinguished himself nicely in the NBA, no denying it... Bayless & Alexander have done nothing... McGee & Randolph have been up & down... guys like Lopez & Augustine had a few supporters here & they've done well... Gallo's on the lower echelon in terms of his development but he's not there alone & the guy you picked that you wanted is right there with him... that's not a double standard either, it's a fact.

Just 2 posts before you were comparing him to anybody in his draft class and claimed that he was in the middle of the pack. Now you're comparing him to just players that people on this forum would have preferred over Gallinari and say that he's in the lower echelon in terms of his development. That's very confusing.

So what is the double standard that you're not getting?

Posted by TMS:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by TMS:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by TMS:

Posted by tkf:

Posted by BlueSeats:

I think two issues need to be separated: Gallo the pick vs Gallo the player.

The irony is that the guys most convinced Gallo was a bad pick are the ones most strident that he needs the most minutes, not because it's what's best for him, but so as to sooner declare themselves right.

Lets just say,for arguments sake, that he was an awful pick, he's damaged goods with little athleticism or skills, and he'll never amount to anything in this league.

If that is your point, and we accept that and let you win that war, then is it still mandatory that he get major minutes every night? Or, if since he's a marginal project on the way to becoming damaged goods would it then be okay if the coaching staff brought him along slowly?

What if management is in the middle and aren't quite ready to declare him a bust, but nor are they ready to declare him a cornerstone - then would it be okay for them to try him in different situations (starting vs off the bench) to see how his game and his back respond, and adjust accordingly?

If the kid is struggling physically, emotionally or whatever, at what point isn't it a requirement that they destroy him as quickly as possible?

you hit the nail on the head with that one.. Although I am one who wants to see him play now, I want that because I feel he can contribute and it will help his development. The funny thing is this, guys like Javele Mcgee and Bayless. .UK board favorites of most, have very similar if not less impressive stats than gallo,and pretty much play around the same amount of minutes. In Mcgee's case, the wizards are one of, if not the worst team in the league... why is he just getting 15mpg? Briggs was very high on this guy? is he a bust? Is there something wrong with him?

i don't get the double standard that's being placed on Gallo's development over other NBA rookies drafted the same year... when u compare his minutes to most of the others he's just about in the middle & this after missing a good portion of the season w/a back injury.

Are you comparing him to other draftees chosen in the top of the draft or are you taking the entire draft as a whole? If you look at the top 10 picks, Gallinari and Joe Alexander are bringing up the rear and not anywhere close to where the other players are in terms of development. That's not a double standard, that's just fact.

i don't look at the top 5 guys picked, we wouldn't have had any of them anyway... that's not a double standard, that's just fact.

i usually try & compare Gallo to the guys that most of u were saying we should take over Gallo when it was our turn to pick... so far Eric Gordon has distinguished himself nicely in the NBA, no denying it... Bayless & Alexander have done nothing... McGee & Randolph have been up & down... guys like Lopez & Augustine had a few supporters here & they've done well... Gallo's on the lower echelon in terms of his development but he's not there alone & the guy you picked that you wanted is right there with him... that's not a double standard either, it's a fact.

Just 2 posts before you were comparing him to anybody in his draft class and claimed that he was in the middle of the pack. Now you're comparing him to just players that people on this forum would have preferred over Gallinari and say that he's in the lower echelon in terms of his development. That's very confusing.

So what is the double standard that you're not getting?

not really... i was listing the stats of the players that BRIGGS brought up while asking why Gallo was not seeing as many minutes as they were to point out where his argument contradicts itself... every time i've raised the issue of Gallo's development on my own it's been in comparison to Jerryd Bayless pretty much cuz he's the guy most of u were saying we lost out on.

nowadays after the fact it's Brooke Lopez & Eric Gordon all of a sudden as if everyone knew those guys were clearly the ones from the very beginning... next year if Bayless breaks out & Gallo still hasn't u & the others will be adding Bayless to the list... that's what u call a double standard... having patience for certain prospects & not for others.

[Edited by - TMS on 02-23-2009 11:46 AM]

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by BlueSeats:

I think two issues need to be separated: Gallo the pick vs Gallo the player.

The irony is that the guys most convinced Gallo was a bad pick are the ones most strident that he needs the most minutes, not because it's what's best for him, but so as to sooner declare themselves right.

Lets just say,for arguments sake, that he was an awful pick, he's damaged goods with little athleticism or skills, and he'll never amount to anything in this league.

If that is your point, and we accept that and let you win that war, then is it still mandatory that he get major minutes every night? Or, if since he's a marginal project on the way to becoming damaged goods would it then be okay if the coaching staff brought him along slowly?

What if management is in the middle and aren't quite ready to declare him a bust, but nor are they ready to declare him a cornerstone - then would it be okay for them to try him in different situations (starting vs off the bench) to see how his game and his back respond, and adjust accordingly?

If the kid is struggling physically, emotionally or whatever, at what point isn't it a requirement that they destroy him as quickly as possible?

I'm going to take a shot at answering this since I have a funny feeling that I'm one of the people that you're addressing.

It has nothing to do with being able to declare that we're right. Frankly that gets tiresome after being right so often. It has to do with maximizing the organizations assets as they try to rebuild. Either he's an asset and a big piece of the future or he's not. If he's not, then they need to figure this out and move on. That window is a short one as the summer of 2010 gets closer.

Nobody is clamoring for Gallinari to get major minutes every night. I think that 10-15 minutes is very reasonable. That's not token minutes and it's not destroying him as quickly as possible.

Let's talk reality now. Management is saying that Gallinari's development is being put on the backburner as they focus on making the playoffs. Then they back that up by DNPing him. That's not bringing him along slowly, that's retarding any growth whatsoever. What are they to learn about him in that situation? If his back can respond to sitting an entire game? If he's really struggling physically, emotionally or whatever then send him to the D-League. Or do you consider that to be destroying him too? The bottom line is that nothing good comes from doing nothing with this guy by DNPing him or playing him token minutes.

You want things to be either/or with no middle ground. Like either fast track him or send him to the d-league. What if his back isn't up to steady minutes of the d-league either?

Why not just try him in different scenarios and see how he responds? Especially if his back is troubled?

You say you want them monitoring and assessing him. Is that best done from another league? Certainly not the Italian league, because you give no credence to his history there.

No, I'm not saying that. Where am I saying anything about fast tracking him?? 10-15 minutes a night off the bench is fast tracking him? I'm pretty sure that's middle ground. At least where I come from.

Again, what are they learning by sitting him completely and saying that they're putting his development on the backburner?

If they don't want to monitor and assess him on their current team then you would think that they would be able to do that in the NBA Developmental League, don't you think? Isn't that what it's for??

D'Antoni said that Gallinari wouldn't be back until he was 100% healthy. He's back and he's played in almost every game since and started 2 games. How long are you and others going to use his back as an excuse and a crutch?

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by BlueSeats:

I think two issues need to be separated: Gallo the pick vs Gallo the player.

The irony is that the guys most convinced Gallo was a bad pick are the ones most strident that he needs the most minutes, not because it's what's best for him, but so as to sooner declare themselves right.

Lets just say,for arguments sake, that he was an awful pick, he's damaged goods with little athleticism or skills, and he'll never amount to anything in this league.

If that is your point, and we accept that and let you win that war, then is it still mandatory that he get major minutes every night? Or, if since he's a marginal project on the way to becoming damaged goods would it then be okay if the coaching staff brought him along slowly?

What if management is in the middle and aren't quite ready to declare him a bust, but nor are they ready to declare him a cornerstone - then would it be okay for them to try him in different situations (starting vs off the bench) to see how his game and his back respond, and adjust accordingly?

If the kid is struggling physically, emotionally or whatever, at what point isn't it a requirement that they destroy him as quickly as possible?

I'm going to take a shot at answering this since I have a funny feeling that I'm one of the people that you're addressing.

It has nothing to do with being able to declare that we're right. Frankly that gets tiresome after being right so often. It has to do with maximizing the organizations assets as they try to rebuild. Either he's an asset and a big piece of the future or he's not. If he's not, then they need to figure this out and move on. That window is a short one as the summer of 2010 gets closer.

Nobody is clamoring for Gallinari to get major minutes every night. I think that 10-15 minutes is very reasonable. That's not token minutes and it's not destroying him as quickly as possible.

Let's talk reality now. Management is saying that Gallinari's development is being put on the backburner as they focus on making the playoffs. Then they back that up by DNPing him. That's not bringing him along slowly, that's retarding any growth whatsoever. What are they to learn about him in that situation? If his back can respond to sitting an entire game? If he's really struggling physically, emotionally or whatever then send him to the D-League. Or do you consider that to be destroying him too? The bottom line is that nothing good comes from doing nothing with this guy by DNPing him or playing him token minutes.

You want things to be either/or with no middle ground. Like either fast track him or send him to the d-league. What if his back isn't up to steady minutes of the d-league either?

Why not just try him in different scenarios and see how he responds? Especially if his back is troubled?

You say you want them monitoring and assessing him. Is that best done from another league? Certainly not the Italian league, because you give no credence to his history there.

No, I'm not saying that. Where am I saying anything about fast tracking him?? 10-15 minutes a night off the bench is fast tracking him? I'm pretty sure that's middle ground. At least where I come from.

Again, what are they learning by sitting him completely and saying that they're putting his development on the backburner?

If they don't want to monitor and assess him on their current team then you would think that they would be able to do that in the NBA Developmental League, don't you think? Isn't that what it's for??

D'Antoni said that Gallinari wouldn't be back until he was 100% healthy. He's back and he's played in almost every game since and started 2 games. How long are you and others going to use his back as an excuse and a crutch?

Isles, I'm not using his back as a crutch, for all I know he's damaged goods that will never recover. I simply don't believe he's 100%, and I don't think you do either, in spite of what management may have said.

I also don't think the kid's season has been shut down just because he got a DNP. Basically he's been getting the 10-14 MPG you demand, so what's the beef? You think in 3 or 4 years when we assess the kind of player he's become we'll be saying "damn, what a player he might have become of only it weren't for that DNP against Toronto back in 2009," or "cripes, this guy would be an allstar instead of trash if only we'd have given him 14 MPG instead of 12"?

Just admit that this isn't about Gallo the player but him as the pick. If your point is we could have done beter with the pick I'm inclined to agree. But that doesn't mean he then needs to be mishandled. In general I believe the guy will become whatever player he's destined to become; the only thing that might stand in the way of that is if he becomes irreparably injured.

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by Pharzeone:

Posted by BlueSeats:

I think two issues need to be separated: Gallo the pick vs Gallo the player.

The irony is that the guys most convinced Gallo was a bad pick are the ones most strident that he needs the most minutes, not because it's what's best for him, but so as to sooner declare themselves right.

Lets just say,for arguments sake, that he was an awful pick, he's damaged goods with little athleticism or skills, and he'll never amount to anything in this league.

If that is your point, and we accept that and let you win that war, then is it still mandatory that he get major minutes every night? Or, if since he's a marginal project on the way to becoming damaged goods would it then be okay if the coaching staff brought him along slowly?

What if management is in the middle and aren't quite ready to declare him a bust, but nor are they ready to declare him a cornerstone - then would it be okay for them to try him in different situations (starting vs off the bench) to see how his game and his back respond, and adjust accordingly?

If the kid is struggling physically, emotionally or whatever, at what point isn't it a requirement that they destroy him as quickly as possible?

Blue you could also say that the irony is that most people who said that Walsh and D'Antoni picked the guy that they thought was the BPA is ok with him not getting the minutes to hold off from being told that they were wrong. I keep hearing give him years to find himself and his game in a league and environment that doesn't really allow for any player to do that. Once more he was not suppose to be a project player. Wasn't he the player with extensive experience in the EL. Now that stance has been changed and he is now a project player. I seem to remember that there were players that most agree had a higher risk and higher reward potential but were considered projects. For pete's sake we had guys ready to give him starting duty at the beginning of the season. Rookies are on a 2 year deal with teams with options to bring them back. So they basically have only two years to show they are worthy to be brought back. Everything is relative in life. It just depends on what stance you take when you wake up.

Also, we are now going into the 9th month of discussing whether or not his back is an issue for what was first described as a non-issue by this organization and many on this forum. Remember an issue that didn't require surgery or real concern. It now appears to be a crutch that only seems to be used as a means of convenience to dismiss concerns about this young man's game. So at what point do we stop using the injury to properly evaluate his performance? The 10th month, the 11th or perhaps the 15th month? Suppose he as healthy as he will get, what then?

I understand your position but it doesn't disqualify my point. I am simply suggesting that we'd understand each other better if we qualified where we are coming from. In particular, if our position is to prove he was a bad pick, or if it is what's best for Gallinari.

For myself, I don't really follow college hoops and didn't take a position on him as a pick, so when I say it's okay to bring him along slowly it's not to defend him as a draft pick. I just think it's what's best for him based on what I've seen so far. If the guy starts finding his groove and banging with abandon then increase his minutes.

See, when you're not trying to attack or defend him as a pick then you can just assess his game and his health for what it is. And I'm not saying I know what his game and health are, I'm just saying I think it's fair to assume that when the guy can contribute they'll let him.

BTW, here's another point of irony. How many years have we trashed management for mishandling injuries: from Ewing, to Houston to Camby to McDyess. So many of the most outspoken critics of our medical staff now insist that we grind this kids back to the bone simply so they can prove he was a bad pick. Maybe he was a bad pick, but do we have to destroy his career in the first year just to demonstrate it?

Here's more irony for you. When it's stipulated, for arguments sakes, that the Euroleague is a stronger level of basketball than the NCAA and that the Knicks Medical Crack Committee knows what it's doing by clearing Gallinari to play, we get that thrown back in our faces. Ironically, by the same people who now dismiss the Euroleague, by calling Gallinari a project, and question whether the Knicks Medical staff allowed him to come back too soon, at least when it suits their argument.

I don't respond to run-on sentences.

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by Pharzeone:

Posted by BlueSeats:

I think two issues need to be separated: Gallo the pick vs Gallo the player.

The irony is that the guys most convinced Gallo was a bad pick are the ones most strident that he needs the most minutes, not because it's what's best for him, but so as to sooner declare themselves right.

Lets just say,for arguments sake, that he was an awful pick, he's damaged goods with little athleticism or skills, and he'll never amount to anything in this league.

If that is your point, and we accept that and let you win that war, then is it still mandatory that he get major minutes every night? Or, if since he's a marginal project on the way to becoming damaged goods would it then be okay if the coaching staff brought him along slowly?

What if management is in the middle and aren't quite ready to declare him a bust, but nor are they ready to declare him a cornerstone - then would it be okay for them to try him in different situations (starting vs off the bench) to see how his game and his back respond, and adjust accordingly?

If the kid is struggling physically, emotionally or whatever, at what point isn't it a requirement that they destroy him as quickly as possible?

Blue you could also say that the irony is that most people who said that Walsh and D'Antoni picked the guy that they thought was the BPA is ok with him not getting the minutes to hold off from being told that they were wrong. I keep hearing give him years to find himself and his game in a league and environment that doesn't really allow for any player to do that. Once more he was not suppose to be a project player. Wasn't he the player with extensive experience in the EL. Now that stance has been changed and he is now a project player. I seem to remember that there were players that most agree had a higher risk and higher reward potential but were considered projects. For pete's sake we had guys ready to give him starting duty at the beginning of the season. Rookies are on a 2 year deal with teams with options to bring them back. So they basically have only two years to show they are worthy to be brought back. Everything is relative in life. It just depends on what stance you take when you wake up.

Also, we are now going into the 9th month of discussing whether or not his back is an issue for what was first described as a non-issue by this organization and many on this forum. Remember an issue that didn't require surgery or real concern. It now appears to be a crutch that only seems to be used as a means of convenience to dismiss concerns about this young man's game. So at what point do we stop using the injury to properly evaluate his performance? The 10th month, the 11th or perhaps the 15th month? Suppose he as healthy as he will get, what then?

I understand your position but it doesn't disqualify my point. I am simply suggesting that we'd understand each other better if we qualified where we are coming from. In particular, if our position is to prove he was a bad pick, or if it is what's best for Gallinari.

For myself, I don't really follow college hoops and didn't take a position on him as a pick, so when I say it's okay to bring him along slowly it's not to defend him as a draft pick. I just think it's what's best for him based on what I've seen so far. If the guy starts finding his groove and banging with abandon then increase his minutes.

See, when you're not trying to attack or defend him as a pick then you can just assess his game and his health for what it is. And I'm not saying I know what his game and health are, I'm just saying I think it's fair to assume that when the guy can contribute they'll let him.

BTW, here's another point of irony. How many years have we trashed management for mishandling injuries: from Ewing, to Houston to Camby to McDyess. So many of the most outspoken critics of our medical staff now insist that we grind this kids back to the bone simply so they can prove he was a bad pick. Maybe he was a bad pick, but do we have to destroy his career in the first year just to demonstrate it?

Good post. I agree. I never saw the guy play a minute until summer league so I did not have an opinion of the guy. I have no idea what this guy is going to be. I dont' know if he's going to be a bust or not. I'm just not going to read into it. In my view he isn't getting major minutes because he isn't ready. He could not be ready because he still has developing to do, or he could not be ready because he doesn't have an NBA game. Either way he isn't ready. Hopefully his minutes increase and he plays more. If not, I have to assume he isn't ready for minutes.

I personally do not believe in handing a guy minutes until he deserves it. Too many times, guys have been handed minutes and their work ethic disappears.

As for this whole argument, it's so all over the map. From Gallo stinking, to Gallo is injury prone to Walsh and crew blew the pick, to Walsh and crew don't care about the future. I can't tell where we are and what the argument is.

Posted by TMS:

Posted by islesfan:

The point from draft day on was that we lost out on better players that fit more pressing needs than Gallinari. There is still a lot of veracity when it comes to that viewpoint. But who cares who people on this board wanted, the distressing part is that the guy being paid millions to make that decision made the selection that he did. All after saying that they couldn't afford to screw up the pick.

no, the point is that those of you who've had a closed mind about Gallo from before you even watched him play a single game are not giving him even half the leeway to develop & mature that you are for other players in the same draft class because you're so damn enthused to throw the I Told You So card in our faces at every single opportunity.

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by TMS:

Posted by islesfan:

The point from draft day on was that we lost out on better players that fit more pressing needs than Gallinari. There is still a lot of veracity when it comes to that viewpoint. But who cares who people on this board wanted, the distressing part is that the guy being paid millions to make that decision made the selection that he did. All after saying that they couldn't afford to screw up the pick.

no, the point is that those of you who've had a closed mind about Gallo from before you even watched him play a single game are not giving him even half the leeway to develop & mature that you are for other players in the same draft class because you're so damn enthused to throw the I Told You So card in our faces at every single opportunity.

How is that when we want to see Gallinari get minutes to help him develop and mature...like...

must..not...mention...Lopez...or Gordon...

I Told...must...stop...