This is like when Tommy Deee makes a "Knicks should go after T-Mac article" No freakin' duh.

New York fans; they can't stop crying over spilled milk. They can't stop living in the past and they have the narrowest possible view of the future. You should've boarded a ship to Pandora and went into cryogenic sleep for the last 4 and a half years.

now obviously, to this point it looks like we wasted the 2009 draft. i have little faith in jordan hill and it's pretty obvious that donnie was caught off guard when stephen curry was taken by GSW. we should have taken jennings or lawson or traded down to take lawson later or something. we messed up the 09 draft. i think gallo from the 08 draft was a solid pick.

to be fair to donnie in both drafts the guy i thought they really needed (russell westbrook in 08 and stephen curry in 09) were off the board and he had no assets to move up, so i think we did what he felt was right.

to all draft "experts" jordan hill was the conservative pick - he was the top rated big man on the board, from the same conference as brook lopez. he has the athleticism to play in this system and he may get it eventually. jennings would have been a total gamble. milwaukee had nothing to lose.

if jennings came here and didn't pop he and d'antoni and walsh would all be under intense scrutiny. remember, jennings had plenty of problems with the media and maturity. i think it's probably helped him a lot to play in the middle of nowhere with one beat writer following the team. in new york, there would be 10 beat writers and four tv stations. it's a different environment. i think gallo was a great pick for that environment. don't know about jordan hill yet. i suspect we'll see more of him in march.

crzymdups wrote:i hate brook lopez. he's a punk. and you want to talk about empty stats? dude plays for a 4-45 team. it's not all his fault, but it certainly means he isn't dominating much from the center position. andrew bogut or david lee or andrew bynum would NEVER have a record like that. i'm sorry, i see no evidence brook lopez is worthwhile at all. i can think of a handful of games we would not have won without gallinari this year. i'm fine with him over brook.

now obviously, to this point it looks like we wasted the 2009 draft. i have little faith in jordan hill and it's pretty obvious that donnie was caught off guard when stephen curry was taken by GSW. we should have taken jennings or lawson or traded down to take lawson later or something. we messed up the 09 draft. i think gallo from the 08 draft was a solid pick.

to be fair to donnie in both drafts the guy i thought they really needed (russell westbrook in 08 and stephen curry in 09) were off the board and he had no assets to move up, so i think we did what he felt was right.

to all draft "experts" jordan hill was the conservative pick - he was the top rated big man on the board, from the same conference as brook lopez. he has the athleticism to play in this system and he may get it eventually. jennings would have been a total gamble. milwaukee had nothing to lose.

if jennings came here and didn't pop he and d'antoni and walsh would all be under intense scrutiny. remember, jennings had plenty of problems with the media and maturity. i think it's probably helped him a lot to play in the middle of nowhere with one beat writer following the team. in new york, there would be 10 beat writers and four tv stations. it's a different environment. i think gallo was a great pick for that environment. don't know about jordan hill yet. i suspect we'll see more of him in march.

I have a firm believe that if we had a Brook Lopez David Lee frontline--that we'd be a+ .500 team. Was Ty Lawson a reach at 8? If we were thinking the way DW said--we cant get picks wrong--I don't think Ty Lawson is a reach at a position of need. Is Branden Jennings better maybe Collison or any other PG--maybe--but Ty Lawson was the conservative pick. I don't dislike Jordan Hill but A. Hes no NBA C and B they shouldve used the pick to remove Curry if the decision was to sit the kid. You cant use a lottery pick on an upperclassmen than sit him on a bad team. Dejuam Blair was a no-brainer at the draft and has proven it already. We had someone high up on the Knicks BELIEVE that Douglas was a PG and that has turned out false--and they paid 3mm $ to find that out. Thats not saying he cant be a good player--but the lack of communication between management and the coach is also disturbing.

Gallinari was not some unknown Euro "discovered" by the Knicks. He was considered to be an excellent offensive player (who has turned out to be a pretty good defender) who had a good, but not superstar, upside. He was considered to be a "safe" pick by many analysts, if I remember correctly-hardly a reach pick.

Hill, while not spectacular, was the best big man on the board according to the Knicks. He was a guy the Knicks knew to be "raw" but also a guy who had shown a history of consistent improvement as a college player, a great jumper, and shot blocking and rebounding ability.

Blair would have been a reach at 8. If we had gotten Curry at 8 the Knicks were said to be looking at forwards like Derrick Brown or DaJuan Summers, if I remember correctly.

Lopez would have been a conservative pick too- I agree with you on that.

I think the Knicks would have taken Holiday over Lawson, if they had decided to go small.

Yeah, I don't want to talk about conservative pricks either.