[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

Concern over the Utah pick from the Marbury trade.
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum


Author Poll
Cosmic
Posts: 6570
Joined: 3/17/2006
Member: #1115
USA
I see some fans so very concerned over what position Utah will pick. So much so that they'd be willing to mess with our 2010 cap space to try to win as many games as possible to lower the value of the Utah pick. As made known, I am against such an ideal, feeling it's a long gone transaction, and we need to worry about rebuilding our team instead of sacraficing the growth of our youth to try to win a handful of extra games - and believe me that would be all it is - to drop Utah 2-5 spots in the lotto. So, what's your pleasure? I bet Utah gets the 8th pick next year since we won't be any good. Maybe a vet wins us 2-5 more games and we drop them to 10th-12th. You're dreaming if you think any guy we can sign, who will come here this summer, will win us 10 more games and guarantee a playoff birth, sending Utah to 15th and lower.
Spend for a vet, reduce Utah's pick. 10th-12th pick is better than 8th.
Spend for a vet, we will win 10 more games, playoffs -- Utah gets 15th or worse.
Utah will win the lottery no matter how we play this. That's our Ewing trade curse.
Who cares where Utah picks!? Let's worry about US for a change!
View Results


« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
nyk4ever
Posts: 41010
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 1/12/2005
Member: #848
USA
7/5/2009  12:47 PM
It's over and done with, the pick isnt ours anymore so might as well just forget about it.
"OMG - did we just go on a two-trade-wining-streak?" -SupremeCommander
AUTOADVERT
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
7/5/2009  12:47 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost
Traditional economics proposes that an economic actor does not let sunk costs influence one's decisions, because doing so would not be rationally assessing a decision exclusively on its own merits...Behavioral economics proposes the opposite: that sunk costs greatly affect actors' decisions, because humans are inherently loss aversive and thus normally act irrationally when making economic decisions.
Nalod
Posts: 71790
Alba Posts: 155
Joined: 12/24/2003
Member: #508
USA
7/5/2009  12:52 PM

It does not matter where Utah picks. We cannot be concerned to playing in any form what so ever.

The only tangable fact your dealing with the pick is regret and Envy.

Its gone. Its not ours. There is no substantial element at all to the pick with the expection of revisionist thinking and anger of "What could be".

In my mind DLee was a gift pick that worked out.

All Teams make mistakes and at the same time get some back.
DaMan
Posts: 20004
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/18/2007
Member: #1265
7/5/2009  1:03 PM
Someone is going to get that high pick that won't be us. Under those circumstances I'd rather that team be Utah than some team in the east.
Ignorance is Bliss
VDesai
Posts: 43296
Alba Posts: 44
Joined: 10/28/2003
Member: #477
USA
7/5/2009  1:55 PM
The pick is lost, so we just have to deal with it- whatever number the pick ends up being. Clearly there is no incentive to tank so we should win as many games as we possibly can, but we shouldn't sacrifice financial flexibility in the process. If we can get a great vet that helps us 2010 and beyond, then great, otherwise try to fill in the gaps with 1 yr deals.
kam77
Posts: 27664
Alba Posts: 25
Joined: 3/17/2004
Member: #634
7/5/2009  2:19 PM
I would spend for a VET to make us a better team and more attractive to FAs.

Has nothing to do with the pick.


lol @ being BANNED by Martin since 11/07/10 (for asking if Mr. Earl had a point). Really, Martin? C'mon. This is the internet. I've seen much worse on this site. By Earl himself. Drop the hypocrisy.
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
7/5/2009  2:27 PM
Posted by kam77:

I would spend for a VET to make us a better team and more attractive to FAs.

Has nothing to do with the pick.

Don't do that because we wouldn't want to jeopardize Santa Claus's visit in 2010.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
7/5/2009  2:40 PM
Bitty's grumpy because Zach got dumped AGAIN! Zach is like the boy who can't get a second date because he has such bad body odor!
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
7/5/2009  2:49 PM
Who voted for the 1st option? Was that just someone being sarcastic?
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
7/5/2009  2:55 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:

Bitty's grumpy because Zach got dumped AGAIN! Zach is like the boy who can't get a second date because he has such bad body odor!

Oh sorry I didn't catch what you said I was in the middle of doing my daily chants of "cap space, Lebron James, cap space, Lebron James"
ramtour420
Posts: 26604
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 3/19/2007
Member: #1388
Russian Federation
7/5/2009  3:20 PM
This is a no brainer. It should be our priority # 1 to not let Utah have this pick. It will be a disgrace and an imbarrasment if we fail to do that. If Utah does get the pick, then i believe the most important goal over the last 15 years for the knicks is to make sure Utah pick is as low as possible. Forget 2010, we have a more important issue here. If Utah picks above 8 i believe both MDA and Walsh should be fired !!!
Everything you have ever wanted is on the other side of fear- George Adair
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
7/5/2009  3:27 PM
Posted by bitty41:
Posted by Bonn1997:

Bitty's grumpy because Zach got dumped AGAIN! Zach is like the boy who can't get a second date because he has such bad body odor!

Oh sorry I didn't catch what you said I was in the middle of doing my daily chants of "cap space, Lebron James, cap space, Lebron James"
HA! You haven't lost your sense of humor even though you almost never post here now.

arkrud
Posts: 32217
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 8/31/2005
Member: #995
USA
7/5/2009  11:45 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost
Traditional economics proposes that an economic actor does not let sunk costs influence one's decisions, because doing so would not be rationally assessing a decision exclusively on its own merits...Behavioral economics proposes the opposite: that sunk costs greatly affect actors' decisions, because humans are inherently loss aversive and thus normally act irrationally when making economic decisions.
WOW!!! What did he say?
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet
Finestrg
Posts: 27296
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/1/2006
Member: #1069
7/5/2009  11:52 PM
I had been saying all along that the winning needs to start next year and for this very reason. I didn't care about last year after about 1/4 - 1/2 through. In fact, I was calling for a tank job. But, yeah, this year Ws are important. Most of this Utah thing is out of our control - they have our pick and that's that. But next year, squeezing out as many Ws as possible is back in play. No way I want Utah getting a high draft pick on the backs of our ineptitude. But hey, we're a team in transistion so winning at a consistent level may still be difficult. But I wouldn't go as far as adding short-term, expensive vet talent just to come up with a better bottom line - that's asinine. We have a plan and we need to stick to it. Anyone we add now should be talented enough to at least contribute now AND also factor in as a building block for future Knick teams as well. If you ask me, those are the players we need to add. You add veteran help when you already have a decent team and are looking to get to the next plateau. We aren't there yet.. But I want to see progress - like some of you, I don't want to just hand Utah anything. None of this 30 win nonsense next year. I want closer to 40 wins & a .500 record. That's got to be the goal & I think that's doable. The rest will just have to take care of itself. Next year's draft will be difficult to watch though, no doubt..

[Edited by - finestrg on 07-06-2009 12:00 AM]
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
7/6/2009  12:08 AM
Posted by arkrud:
Posted by Bonn1997:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost
Traditional economics proposes that an economic actor does not let sunk costs influence one's decisions, because doing so would not be rationally assessing a decision exclusively on its own merits...Behavioral economics proposes the opposite: that sunk costs greatly affect actors' decisions, because humans are inherently loss aversive and thus normally act irrationally when making economic decisions.
WOW!!! What did he say?

don't worry arkrud. they made a movie with bonn's depiction in it so we all can better understand where he comes from.

he comes in at the 1:00 mark with a stale blue v-neck, bang, and pony tail. Watch with delight as Matt Damon totally owns the bonn based character called Clark in this classic film.

the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
Markji
Posts: 22753
Alba Posts: -4
Joined: 9/14/2007
Member: #1673
USA
7/6/2009  12:19 AM
If we can land a veteran for 1 year then fine. Or a veteran who can play and inspire FA superstars for 2010, then fine (Kidd or Nash)....Or a younger for for more years who would be part of our rebuilding, then fine. But not an old vet for a few years who is over the Hill. Pun intended.

Kidd has signed with Dallas.....Rasheed is signing with the Celtics....Nash will be kept by Phoenix.......

That leaves Grant Hill whom I'm sure would rather sign with a contender. Hill has been a great player when healthy and a very good team player/leader. But he is 37 years old in Oct. While he was healthy and played well last year, he isn't needed for more than 1 year. He is also not a good 3 point shooter - 31% last year; 28% career. And if I were him, I would be looking for a contending team to finish out my career.
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense. Tom Clancy - author
sebstar
Posts: 25698
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 6/2/2002
Member: #249
USA
7/6/2009  12:28 AM
Yep, totally agree. We've got to swallow the bitter pill, but we cant make a shortsighted move that would compromise the future ala Harris for Kidd kind of move.
My saliva and spit can split thread into fiber and bits/ So trust me I'm as live as it gets. --Royce Da 5'9 + DJ Premier = Hip Hop Utopia
SupremeCommander
Posts: 34071
Alba Posts: 35
Joined: 4/28/2006
Member: #1127
7/6/2009  1:52 AM
Posted by McK1:
Posted by arkrud:
Posted by Bonn1997:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost
Traditional economics proposes that an economic actor does not let sunk costs influence one's decisions, because doing so would not be rationally assessing a decision exclusively on its own merits...Behavioral economics proposes the opposite: that sunk costs greatly affect actors' decisions, because humans are inherently loss aversive and thus normally act irrationally when making economic decisions.
WOW!!! What did he say?

don't worry arkrud. they made a movie with bonn's depiction in it so we all can better understand where he comes from.

he comes in at the 1:00 mark with a stale blue v-neck, bang, and pony tail. Watch with delight as Matt Damon totally owns the bonn based character called Clark in this classic film.


I love that scene. Not what Bonn is talking about, but love it nonetheless

What Bonn is saying is that the cost of the trade was a first round pick and you can't go back in time to undo the trade. Hence, sunk cost. However--the cost that was paid tend to influence the way people approach a situation. For example, the consensus on this board is that the Dallas Mavericks are overpaying to keep Jason Kidd and are doing so because of the sunk cost Mark Cuban paid to acquire Kidd. So people tend to interpret sunk costs as variable costs on a behavioral level.

Another example would be poker. Let's say I bluff and someone re-raises. Well, just because I put money in the middle of the table has no bearing on how I should proceed. But, **** it man. I already put $267 dollars into that pot, I'm going to go all in
DLeethal wrote: Lol Rick needs a safe space
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
7/6/2009  2:36 AM
Posted by sebstar:

Yep, totally agree. We've got to swallow the bitter pill, but we cant make a shortsighted move that would compromise the future ala Harris for Kidd kind of move.

agreed, as long as the move doesn't hurt our 2010 cap i'm all for any moves that will improve our team this season... we can't lose sight of the longterm goal just because we don't want Utah to end up w/a high pick in this year's lottery.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
« Reply To Topic
Concern over the Utah pick from the Marbury trade.
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy