mreinman wrote:

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:what did philly accomplish before hinkie?

Immediately before?

The made the postseason the same year thy picked #2 in the draft.

They made the postseason the next season and won a first round postseason series.

They were decimated by injuries the following season… and then came Hinkie.

Now playing in postseason games is a positive for any professional sport franchise.

If by "what the did accomplish" you solely mean championships, but that regard all but 2 or 3 teams should be tanking.

If your criteria is more liberal, they put a team on the floor that played meaningful games, in the regular season and postseason.

so I guess that it depends on what the end game is.

Dolan mortgaged the future numerous times just to have a crappy competitive team.

Many of us here wanted to "tear it down". Some of us would rather hit the reset a few times (and have the options to) then to be stuck in mediocrity.

How was that last philly team getting a star? No way they were gonna be contenders with that team.

So I have no issue with a GM rebuilding and using the draft to restock the cubbards. Makes sense. Ignoring the human and teambuilding aspects, along with the need to play some meaningful basketball however is stupid, which is the premis of this chat.

So plan? Average. "We need to draft stars" is not cutting edge basketball manage.
Execution? FAIL. Phili was never garbage. 10 playoff teams in the last 15 years before Hinkie.

Also how can you even evaluate Noels and OK4 when no game is ever close? I mean look no further than our own team. I get that Grant is struggling, but dont you think it means something to our rookies and young players to play meaningful games?

Bad plan, bad execution, bad GM. Disgusting what he is doing to that team and the sport period. Im enjoying watching the failure and rooting for the players!

mreinman wrote:

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:what did philly accomplish before hinkie?

Immediately before?

The made the postseason the same year thy picked #2 in the draft.

They made the postseason the next season and won a first round postseason series.

They were decimated by injuries the following season… and then came Hinkie.

Now playing in postseason games is a positive for any professional sport franchise.

If by "what the did accomplish" you solely mean championships, but that regard all but 2 or 3 teams should be tanking.

If your criteria is more liberal, they put a team on the floor that played meaningful games, in the regular season and postseason.

so I guess that it depends on what the end game is.

Okay, what is it?

Championship or bust?

I'd again argue if that is the criteria, all about the Warriors, Cavs, Spurs, maybe another team or two should be tanking right now.

How was that last philly team getting a star? No way they were gonna be contenders with that team.

Traded up one spot to draft Leonard in 2011? Drafted Butler?

Drafted Green or Middleton in 2012?

Drafted Gobert or Antetokounmpo in 2013?

I didn't even mention George or Cousins in 2010.

so you want them to rely on hitting a home run in the draft? that is exactly what hinkie preaches against.

You said that's exactly what he needs to get lucky with and do.

And the discussion is the wisdom of what he preaches. That fact he preaches it is a given and irrelevant.

and yes, he is going all in (or bust) to hit on a franchise pick.

Should the Knicks in 2016-17?

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:what did philly accomplish before hinkie?

Immediately before?

The made the postseason the same year thy picked #2 in the draft.

They made the postseason the next season and won a first round postseason series.

They were decimated by injuries the following season… and then came Hinkie.

Now playing in postseason games is a positive for any professional sport franchise.

If by "what the did accomplish" you solely mean championships, but that regard all but 2 or 3 teams should be tanking.

If your criteria is more liberal, they put a team on the floor that played meaningful games, in the regular season and postseason.

so I guess that it depends on what the end game is.

Okay, what is it?

Championship or bust?

I'd again argue if that is the criteria, all about the Warriors, Cavs, Spurs, maybe another team or two should be tanking right now.

How was that last philly team getting a star? No way they were gonna be contenders with that team.

Traded up one spot to draft Leonard in 2011? Drafted Butler?

Drafted Green or Middleton in 2012?

Drafted Gobert or Antetokounmpo in 2013?

I didn't even mention George or Cousins in 2010.

so you want them to rely on hitting a home run in the draft? that is exactly what hinkie preaches against.

You said that's exactly what he needs to get lucky with and do.

And the discussion is the wisdom of what he preaches. That fact he preaches it is a given and irrelevant.

and yes, he is going all in (or bust) to hit on a franchise pick.

Should the Knicks in 2016-17?

we don't know how to tank. but yes, if we have a bunch of middling and aging players, then tanking would be a great move. what if we drafted russell, he was a bust, and carmelo was just not carmelo anymore? I would want to trade him for as many assets as we can get and stink for a few years while trying to build an organic team.

Tanking is smart. It takes a bit of guts and you can get away with it for too long especially in NY with our impatient and short sighted fan base.

If we knew how to tank then MDA would have made sure that he ran a 20 seconds or less offense to insure that he got Curry who he desperately coveted.

mreinman wrote:we don't know how to tank. but yes, if we have a bunch of middling and aging players, then tanking would be a great move.

You moved the goal posts a little bit.

I think we'd both agree the Knicks are unlikely to play for a championship in 2016-17.

Based on that criteria alone, should they tank, yes or no?

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:I will try to find it but he talks specifically about not needing to hit a home run in the draft

Which is exactly what I think we agree his tenure is reliant upon… hitting home run in the 2016 draft.

Irony.

Knixkik wrote:

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:I will try to find it but he talks specifically about not needing to hit a home run in the draft

Which is exactly what I think we agree his tenure is reliant upon… hitting home run in the 2016 draft.

Irony.

I remember him speaking about getting more draft picks to increase the chances of hitting a home run in the draft. How each pick is a gamble and he needs to maximize those opportunities. He is relying solely on hitting a homerun on a pick, and he doesn't want to rely on his talent as a draft evaluater, but rely on the more picks, the higher the chance of landing good players.

So if the premise is he's still waiting and he may only have one more shot, he's at least fail because this plan has now boiled to what it was designed to avoid

Seems like we're getting in the neighborhood of objective failure, EVEN if he get his home run.

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:we don't know how to tank. but yes, if we have a bunch of middling and aging players, then tanking would be a great move.

You moved the goal posts a little bit.

I think we'd both agree the Knicks are unlikely to play for a championship in 2016-17.

Based on that criteria alone, should they tank, yes or no?

your moving the goal posts. Not black and white, right?

I don't understand this response.

There is a chance that we will never be able to fairly judge what he did being that there will be other aspects introduced that will make what he did hard to quantify.

So Hinkie is above criticism?

Hinkie is far from an idiot and he definitely is doing things that we do not see. To say that it is stupid the end is just plain silly.

I don't understand what he is doing we can't see, but I'm not calling Hinkie and idiot or stupid.

That said, Hinkie wouldn't be the first very smart person to find out his theories proved difficult to translate into practical application.

This isn't about not appreciating outliers and experiment and those willing to go against the grain.

It's about he's testing in the field rather than a lab and the results are not very encouraging so far.

Did I say that he is above criticism? Of course he is not.

This quote of yours is really funny:

"I don't understand what he is doing we can't see"

maybe I am reading it wrong.

Also, you can't always test in a lab. Not every test can be tried on mice.

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:Did I say that he is above criticism? Of course he is not.

I read 'may never be able to be fairly judged' as something of a notion that we shouldn't bother trying to judge him because we'll never have enough information.

Those things strike me as similar.

This quote of yours is really funny:

"I don't understand what he is doing we can't see"

maybe I am reading it wrong.

No, you're reading it right. Can you propose something Hinkie is doing that we cannot see?

Also, you can't always test in a lab. Not every test can be tried on mice.

Nope, and it makes it easier to see when the trial subject isn't getting any better.

LOL

the patient is in a five year remission.

If I can see what was going on behind closed doors then the door would not be closed. Can I propose something? I would not know where to start ...

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:Did I say that he is above criticism? Of course he is not.

I read 'may never be able to be fairly judged' as something of a notion that we shouldn't bother trying to judge him because we'll never have enough information.

Those things strike me as similar.

This quote of yours is really funny:

"I don't understand what he is doing we can't see"

maybe I am reading it wrong.

No, you're reading it right. Can you propose something Hinkie is doing that we cannot see?

Also, you can't always test in a lab. Not every test can be tried on mice.

Nope, and it makes it easier to see when the trial subject isn't getting any better.

LOL

the patient is in a five year remission.

If I can see what was going on behind closed doors then the door would not be closed. Can I propose something? I would not know where to start ...

So he's just getting perfunctory credit for maybe something we can't speculate on?

I always concede the "hey, you never know" argument, which is where this seems to have wound up. Indeed, anything can happen.

And I appreciate you admire this intelligence and that his theories appeal to you, but again, you seem to be somewhat tilting towards the "he may never be appreciated in his own time" thing. I guess that makes you Saliari, the one guy just smart enough to understand how nobody properly appreciated Mozart.. :-)

The thing is, people are walking about of Hinkie's opera's and Okafor and Noel and Emiid aren't sheets of music. They only have limited self-life.

I did not give him perfunctory credit. I have not called him stupid or labeled him a failure either. As I said, I am curious to see how it plays out. I am definitely enjoying this.

Is he crazy and extreme? Certainly! Love that he is thinking out of the box. When you think out of the box then purist will hate you.

WHAT THE FUK IS TS??? ARGH ... well now TS is the gold standard.

No idea how this will play out. As I said, he needs some luck like everyone else. So far he has not been lucky. Also, I would like to see what he does the first time he hits the pause tank button and starts exercising some of those assets in trades. Not sure if he will get the chances but for the experiments sake, I hope it does.

I would rather this fail miserably or be a slam success vs end up in experiment purgatory.

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:I did not give him perfunctory credit. I have not called him stupid or labeled him a failure either.

Why did you say that again? Neither did I.

In his defense you said "he definitely is doing things that we do not see."

Sure seems like giving him credit for vapor to me.

I would rather this fail miserably or be a slam success vs end up in experiment purgatory.

Ironic, considering the Sixers 17-win purgatory IS the underlying premise of this debate. That it has to start going somewhere is exactly the point being made.

the irony was intended.