foosballnick wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Yea like when we acquired Kidd and he proved to be a Great leader. Worth his weight in Gold. On a cheap deal

Phil apparently wasn't capable of adding players like that in the past fourteen months though. It's not like it required major cap space to add Kidd.

This post is a case in point of how someone takes a myopic view of past events to further their agenda. The moves made during 2012 - 2013 including the signing of Kidd were what got the Knicks ultimately into deeper longer term trouble. But don't let that get in the way of your bash Phil agenda.......here's a look at all the Gem moves you wish Phil could have made......

Signed Jason Kidd to a 3 year 9 Million dollar contract - he played on year

Sign & Traded for Camby ($4 mil plus over 3 years) giving up 2 2nd round picks and players - he played in only a few games as a Knick - complete flop

Put an inept Chris Smith on the Roster to appease and resign JR - it did not work out with Chris, and JR was extremely effective for one year and then a distraction thereafter

Let Jeremy Lin go and instead traded a 2nd round pick and other players for Ray Felton - who was effective for 1 year then had domestic abuse and gun troubles and was inneffective thereafter..........and Kurt Thomas who only played one effective year for the Knicks after that

Exercised the option on Shumpert who remained injury plagued and ineffective as a Knick

Signed Rasheed Wallace who was effective as a Knick for approximately 1/4 of a season

Signed Ronnie Brewer who was generally ineffective as a Knick

Signed a really old Prigioni to a 3 year contract to basically be a 3rd sting PG

Signed Kenyon Martin - ineffective

Signed Jeremy Tyler - ineffective

Signed Beno Udrih - ineffective

Signed MWP - ineffective

Drafted THJ - uneven/spotty play - not sure about future with Knicks

Why don't you ask me what moves I would support instead of assuming you know? Look at all that wasted effort on your part.

All posts on fan message boards are essentially time wasted that can be used more productively. So essentially we are all "wasting" time & efforts here.

Your question is interesting, considering that Fish asked you to name moves you would support and you passed. Then I pointed out the littany of bad moves that were made previous to Phil - and you passed on that as well. So basically you've offered nothing to back up your point when questioned by multiple posters.

My only point was that he has added no quality veterans, and that should be self-evident.
I think you are incorrectly assuming I said other things like every veteran we acquired in the past was a good move or like I had inside knowledge about who was available in trade. All I posted was an observation on the past 14 months. GMs get evaluated by what they do achieve - that's all we can go by. We don't have access to further information.

and my point was that the signing of Kidd amounted to less than one year of quality play & leadership out of the 3 he was signed for.....and did not make up for the other 90% of bad veteran signings by the team. You seem unable or unwilling to project what might happen in future years and only remain focused on the record this year as definitive of Phil's capabilities. There are others here who look at this year a purely a transition year and the beginning of a rebuild or reload. That is why there is an excitement about the forthcoming moves instead of a disdain for the tank like record this year.

I have never before heard of a year with $150 mil in commitments being added called a transition year. That was just a convenient spin once everything backfired.
Of course I can't project what will happen in the future. Anyone who says they can is a liar. Phil has much more flexibility this summer like Nixluva says. That could mean tremendous improvement or an even deeper hole. The hope is that he learned from what went wrong last off-season and gets it right this off-season, but I recognize that as merely *hope*

When you say "you have never heard" it becomes an anecdotal subjective statement and therefore meaningless to the debate without factual data as back up.

Secondly - you are again selective with the facts that you bring to the table. The $150 million in future commitments that you are claiming as negating the concept of a transition year is basically with 2 players....Melo and Calderon. Calderon's commitment of approximately $22 million was exchanged for Tyson Chandler and Ray Felton - who totaled approximately $18 million in commitments......and based upon your constant posts about Melo's cap hit, the assumption is that your post is mainly about Melo. My answer to this is yes, it is possible to commit long term to one significant salary over 5 years in a transition year.

fishmike wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Yea like when we acquired Kidd and he proved to be a Great leader. Worth his weight in Gold. On a cheap deal

Phil apparently wasn't capable of adding players like that in the past fourteen months though. It's not like it required major cap space to add Kidd.

This post is a case in point of how someone takes a myopic view of past events to further their agenda. The moves made during 2012 - 2013 including the signing of Kidd were what got the Knicks ultimately into deeper longer term trouble. But don't let that get in the way of your bash Phil agenda.......here's a look at all the Gem moves you wish Phil could have made......

Signed Jason Kidd to a 3 year 9 Million dollar contract - he played on year

Sign & Traded for Camby ($4 mil plus over 3 years) giving up 2 2nd round picks and players - he played in only a few games as a Knick - complete flop

Put an inept Chris Smith on the Roster to appease and resign JR - it did not work out with Chris, and JR was extremely effective for one year and then a distraction thereafter

Let Jeremy Lin go and instead traded a 2nd round pick and other players for Ray Felton - who was effective for 1 year then had domestic abuse and gun troubles and was inneffective thereafter..........and Kurt Thomas who only played one effective year for the Knicks after that

Exercised the option on Shumpert who remained injury plagued and ineffective as a Knick

Signed Rasheed Wallace who was effective as a Knick for approximately 1/4 of a season

Signed Ronnie Brewer who was generally ineffective as a Knick

Signed a really old Prigioni to a 3 year contract to basically be a 3rd sting PG

Signed Kenyon Martin - ineffective

Signed Jeremy Tyler - ineffective

Signed Beno Udrih - ineffective

Signed MWP - ineffective

Drafted THJ - uneven/spotty play - not sure about future with Knicks

Why don't you ask me what moves I would support instead of assuming you know? Look at all that wasted effort on your part.

All posts on fan message boards are essentially time wasted that can be used more productively. So essentially we are all "wasting" time & efforts here.

Your question is interesting, considering that Fish asked you to name moves you would support and you passed. Then I pointed out the littany of bad moves that were made previous to Phil - and you passed on that as well. So basically you've offered nothing to back up your point when questioned by multiple posters.

My only point was that he has added no quality veterans, and that should be self-evident.
I think you are incorrectly assuming I said other things like every veteran we acquired in the past was a good move or like I had inside knowledge about who was available in trade. All I posted was an observation on the past 14 months. GMs get evaluated by what they do achieve - that's all we can go by. We don't have access to further information.

and my point was that the signing of Kidd amounted to less than one year of quality play & leadership out of the 3 he was signed for.....and did not make up for the other 90% of bad veteran signings by the team. You seem unable or unwilling to project what might happen in future years and only remain focused on the record this year as definitive of Phil's capabilities. There are others here who look at this year a purely a transition year and the beginning of a rebuild or reload. That is why there is an excitement about the forthcoming moves instead of a disdain for the tank like record this year.

I have never before heard of a year with $150 mil in commitments being added called a transition year. That was just a convenient spin once everything backfired.
Of course I can't project what will happen in the future. Anyone who says they can is a liar. Phil has much more flexibility this summer like Nixluva says. That could mean tremendous improvement or an even deeper hole. The hope is that he learned from what went wrong last off-season and gets it right this off-season, but I recognize that as merely *hope*

When you say "you have never heard" it becomes an anecdotal subjective statement and therefore meaningless to the debate without factual data as back up.

Secondly - you are again selective with the facts that you bring to the table. The $150 million in future commitments that you are claiming as negating the concept of a transition year is basically with 2 players....Melo and Calderon. Calderon's commitment of approximately $22 million was exchanged for Tyson Chandler and Ray Felton - who totaled approximately $18 million in commitments......and based upon your constant posts about Melo's cap hit, the assumption is that your post is mainly about Melo. My answer to this is yes, it is possible to commit long term to one significant salary over 5 years in a transition year.

Bonn.. this counts as "hearing." Just to be clear.

To be fair, that's a "quasi-transitional" year. Get your made up terms correct before you use them semi-non-correctively. Me, I am anti-quasi-transitional years. You have a transitional year, you need a pre-transitional year, a transitional year and then a post-transitional year. Anything less is pseudo-transitional. For me, its either full transition or nothing. Don't give me any of that 'rebuild around one player' quasi-transitional nonsense. You want a transitional year? Gotta get rid of EVERYONE. Even the caterers. F--- you, Aramark.

Did you hear they transitioned out Herb Williams and most of the old staff? Oops, I meant quasi-transitioned out the old staff. Where's Isiah Thomas? He's gotta be quasi-transitioned somewhere around here.

gunsnewing wrote:Even when Kidd was missing shots we played a lot smarter because of him on both ends. The last 2yrs pretty much proved that as we went from being one of the best defensive teams and efficient offenses and 1st in turnovers to last in defense, offense & turnovers. Kidd was 40 and struggle to hit his shots at the end of the year. Clearly was overplayed early on but his overall effect on the team cannot be trivialized because of a bad couple of weeks shooting the ball.

Kidd was a coach on the floor. I would've liked to try to make him the real coach, but he never gave the Knicks that chance and he never would've meshed with the front office crap here. He did bring the absolute best out of Melo and Shump and Tyson though. I'm glad the Knicks signed him rather than Nash. I just wish they'd have kept Lin and had Kidd mentor Lin.

crzymdups wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Even when Kidd was missing shots we played a lot smarter because of him on both ends. The last 2yrs pretty much proved that as we went from being one of the best defensive teams and efficient offenses and 1st in turnovers to last in defense, offense & turnovers. Kidd was 40 and struggle to hit his shots at the end of the year. Clearly was overplayed early on but his overall effect on the team cannot be trivialized because of a bad couple of weeks shooting the ball.

Kidd was a coach on the floor. I would've liked to try to make him the real coach, but he never gave the Knicks that chance and he never would've meshed with the front office crap here. He did bring the absolute best out of Melo and Shump and Tyson though. I'm glad the Knicks signed him rather than Nash. I just wish they'd have kept Lin and had Kidd mentor Lin.

crzymdups wrote:

fishmike wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Even when Kidd was missing shots we played a lot smarter because of him on both ends. The last 2yrs pretty much proved that as we went from being one of the best defensive teams and efficient offenses and 1st in turnovers to last in defense, offense & turnovers. Kidd was 40 and struggle to hit his shots at the end of the year. Clearly was overplayed early on but his overall effect on the team cannot be trivialized because of a bad couple of weeks shooting the ball.

Kidd was a coach on the floor. I would've liked to try to make him the real coach, but he never gave the Knicks that chance and he never would've meshed with the front office crap here. He did bring the absolute best out of Melo and Shump and Tyson though. I'm glad the Knicks signed him rather than Nash. I just wish they'd have kept Lin and had Kidd mentor Lin.

this was it 100%. Once Kidd was no longer effective it didnt matter as much because the style of play had been cemented and the Knicks were what they were. He's done a good job in Milw and is also clearly a tough personality to deal with. Time will tell how that plays out, but Im not sure I want Kidd running my team.

Yeah, I don't know about him. His moves ever since he's left the Knicks have seemed shady.

Though didn't he specifically cite working with Jeremy Lin as a reason he signed here? Lin not being retained could've been one reason he decided to retire earlier. He signed to play twenty minutes a game and mentor Lin. Then Dolan gets pissy and all the sudden Kidd is playing 40 minutes a night and having to cover for Raymond Felton's glaring lack of point guard skills. It's no wonder he only lasted half a season.

And that is so true I don't know what to even say, the only thing I CAN say is that I forgot about that. You know, as a Knicks fan you have to develop some defense mechanisms or else risk becoming Blueseats or dk7th

nyk4ever wrote:

dk7th wrote:

nixluva wrote:

misterearl wrote:Analytics R Us

Are there any available metrics (from the last two decades) on the average number of seasons required for an NBA franchise to make the leap from worst to Conference Finals?

Why would this even be a valuable statistic? We aren't expecting this to be an average off season. Unless you think every off season that the "average" team has a top 5 pick and $30 mil in cap space. This of course isn't the case, so for the Knicks there's a chance they can make a larger than typical increase in wins next season.

See you keep thinking this has to have a historically similar result this off season and there is actually a good chance that this team does better than average in terms of improvement this summer. A normal or average year to year improvement may not apply to the Knicks next season. If things go well the Knicks could be much better next year and not just marginally better. That's what Phil and his staff are hoping for.

where is the leadership going to come from this off-season? which free agents? which draft picks? this team will continue to underachieve unless and until we acquire leadership over and above talent. fishflop thinks that with the adequate amount of talent acquired all of a sudden leadership will emerge like magic, or according to some empirical evidence only he is privy to.

what do you think of this assertion of his?

leadership just happens. maybe the leadership will come from the head coach,maybe a vet free-agent, maybe melo, or maybe a young guy will step and take the reins. i dont really care if melo is a leader or not, as long as he scores the ball and makes positive contributions out on the court. to sit here in april and ask where the leadership will come from, like there is an answer that people are going to pull out of their asses is stupid to me. these things take care of themselves, especially when teams start winning games.

incredible. now there are two people who believe leadership just comes into being after some sort of critical mass level of talent is achieved. does anyone remember that 54 win season?