SupremeCommander wrote:

nixluva wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:We've got to acknowledge that Picks in and of themselves aren't guarantees. They're assets of HOPE and you can never really know what they'll turn into except for when you trade them in GOOD DEALS. The Knicks have made bad use of their picks in the past. In this case the team has a Franchise Stud in KP and some really good young players in development. They can CASH IN a couple of picks for a proven player like Kyrie who at 25 fits with KP at 22. The concept of 25 or younger isn't just about Future Draft Picks.

The article pointed out the top players on 50 win teams and really you won't find any 19, 20 or 21 yr old players. Knicks are right to be interested in a player like Kyrie to go along with KP and THJ in particular.

Do we have to be a 50 win team by the time KP is 25? If we win 44, he's going to take a paycut to leave? He's not even good enough right now for me to obsess over losing him (though hopefully he will be eventually).

I guarantee that waiting on two more 19 yr olds over the next 2 years this team will NOT be a 50 win team. That's the general point being made in the article. The Knicks can accelerate the process greatly with adding a young stud like Kyrie by cashing in on the picks.

Why do we need to be a 50 win team in 2 years? I highly doubt Kyrie has that kind of impact any way but I don't even agree with the premise that we must win 50 games by next year.

It's not that they reach 50 wins next year! The point is that 22 yr old Nitty, 21 yr old 2018 pick and 20 yr old 2019 pick won't be ready to help 25 yr old KP win 50. The development process is MUCH LONGER waiting for those picks to reach impact level.

What's magical about KP turning 25? He's going to take a paycut to play somewhere because we only won 47 games? I'd argue that if we overpay for Kyrie, it's actually going to take much longer to get to 50 wins anyway.

what's magical is nix's deeper level of understanding or whatever

there is literally no point in dealing away young assets and future picks right now when we don't have any semblance of a championship team on the roster currently... those guys need to be developed and they need minutes in order to develop... we're not one piece away or two... we still have essentially dead salary...

First off Phuck U! I didn't just spout off cliche BS as you're doing. I highlighted points from the article that use REAL WORLD examples to make a point. We all should value Picks. They have the most value BEFORE the Draft or if you are lucky enough to draft an IMPACT player. Obviously MOST picks don't fall into the Impact player category.

As for dealing a Pick for Kyrie there's a VERY LOW chance that we draft a kid as good or better than Kyrie. Just the nature of the Lottery alone makes it difficult. Then you have to WAIT YEARS for that 2018 and 2019 pick to develop enough to be an impact player. Kyrie is there now and together with KP, THJ and Willy you would have a great chance of reaching the 50 Win level and sooner than waiting on yet undrafted players to develop.

first off, stop being a child... telling me what I'm missing or whatever when I don't agree wiht you

second off, I'm sorry I don't believe trading the farm for someone who is 25 is a magic cure for the team

third off, I hope I get a chance to meet you one day internet tough guy

You don't wanna meet me! At least not in the way you're suggesting. Just remember YOU dissed me first even tho I didn't mention your name or say anything disrespectful to you. You could've made your point without the personal dig at me!

You still haven't actually made a case against what the article is pointing to. This isn't to say going slow and building thru the draft is wrong. The point is that making use of future picks isn't necessarily this bad idea so many think it is. Each scenario is different but in this case the Knicks already started to make moves for a more immediate development path by signing THJ who is 25 just like Kyrie. They did draft Nitty but have older prospects like Baker and Dotson.

Doing this makes better use of KP's early years at the same time still having enough youth for an extended run.

nixluva wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

nixluva wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:We've got to acknowledge that Picks in and of themselves aren't guarantees. They're assets of HOPE and you can never really know what they'll turn into except for when you trade them in GOOD DEALS. The Knicks have made bad use of their picks in the past. In this case the team has a Franchise Stud in KP and some really good young players in development. They can CASH IN a couple of picks for a proven player like Kyrie who at 25 fits with KP at 22. The concept of 25 or younger isn't just about Future Draft Picks.

The article pointed out the top players on 50 win teams and really you won't find any 19, 20 or 21 yr old players. Knicks are right to be interested in a player like Kyrie to go along with KP and THJ in particular.

Do we have to be a 50 win team by the time KP is 25? If we win 44, he's going to take a paycut to leave? He's not even good enough right now for me to obsess over losing him (though hopefully he will be eventually).

I guarantee that waiting on two more 19 yr olds over the next 2 years this team will NOT be a 50 win team. That's the general point being made in the article. The Knicks can accelerate the process greatly with adding a young stud like Kyrie by cashing in on the picks.

Why do we need to be a 50 win team in 2 years? I highly doubt Kyrie has that kind of impact any way but I don't even agree with the premise that we must win 50 games by next year.

It's not that they reach 50 wins next year! The point is that 22 yr old Nitty, 21 yr old 2018 pick and 20 yr old 2019 pick won't be ready to help 25 yr old KP win 50. The development process is MUCH LONGER waiting for those picks to reach impact level.

What's magical about KP turning 25? He's going to take a paycut to play somewhere because we only won 47 games? I'd argue that if we overpay for Kyrie, it's actually going to take much longer to get to 50 wins anyway.

what's magical is nix's deeper level of understanding or whatever

there is literally no point in dealing away young assets and future picks right now when we don't have any semblance of a championship team on the roster currently... those guys need to be developed and they need minutes in order to develop... we're not one piece away or two... we still have essentially dead salary...

First off Phuck U! I didn't just spout off cliche BS as you're doing. I highlighted points from the article that use REAL WORLD examples to make a point. We all should value Picks. They have the most value BEFORE the Draft or if you are lucky enough to draft an IMPACT player. Obviously MOST picks don't fall into the Impact player category.

As for dealing a Pick for Kyrie there's a VERY LOW chance that we draft a kid as good or better than Kyrie. Just the nature of the Lottery alone makes it difficult. Then you have to WAIT YEARS for that 2018 and 2019 pick to develop enough to be an impact player. Kyrie is there now and together with KP, THJ and Willy you would have a great chance of reaching the 50 Win level and sooner than waiting on yet undrafted players to develop.

first off, stop being a child... telling me what I'm missing or whatever when I don't agree wiht you

second off, I'm sorry I don't believe trading the farm for someone who is 25 is a magic cure for the team

third off, I hope I get a chance to meet you one day internet tough guy

You don't wanna meet me! At least not in the way you're suggesting. Just remember YOU dissed me first even tho I didn't mention your name or say anything disrespectful to you. You could've made your point without the personal dig at me!

You still haven't actually made a case against what the article is pointing to. This isn't to say going slow and building thru the draft is wrong. The point is that making use of future picks isn't necessarily this bad idea so many think it is. Each scenario is different but in this case the Knicks already started to make moves for a more immediate development path by signing THJ who is 25 just like Kyrie. They did draft Nitty but have older prospects like Baker and Dotson.

Doing this makes better use of KP's early years at the same time still having enough youth for an extended run.

lmao

nixluva wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

nixluva wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

nixluva wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:We've got to acknowledge that Picks in and of themselves aren't guarantees. They're assets of HOPE and you can never really know what they'll turn into except for when you trade them in GOOD DEALS. The Knicks have made bad use of their picks in the past. In this case the team has a Franchise Stud in KP and some really good young players in development. They can CASH IN a couple of picks for a proven player like Kyrie who at 25 fits with KP at 22. The concept of 25 or younger isn't just about Future Draft Picks.

The article pointed out the top players on 50 win teams and really you won't find any 19, 20 or 21 yr old players. Knicks are right to be interested in a player like Kyrie to go along with KP and THJ in particular.

Do we have to be a 50 win team by the time KP is 25? If we win 44, he's going to take a paycut to leave? He's not even good enough right now for me to obsess over losing him (though hopefully he will be eventually).

I guarantee that waiting on two more 19 yr olds over the next 2 years this team will NOT be a 50 win team. That's the general point being made in the article. The Knicks can accelerate the process greatly with adding a young stud like Kyrie by cashing in on the picks.

Why do we need to be a 50 win team in 2 years? I highly doubt Kyrie has that kind of impact any way but I don't even agree with the premise that we must win 50 games by next year.

It's not that they reach 50 wins next year! The point is that 22 yr old Nitty, 21 yr old 2018 pick and 20 yr old 2019 pick won't be ready to help 25 yr old KP win 50. The development process is MUCH LONGER waiting for those picks to reach impact level.

What's magical about KP turning 25? He's going to take a paycut to play somewhere because we only won 47 games? I'd argue that if we overpay for Kyrie, it's actually going to take much longer to get to 50 wins anyway.

what's magical is nix's deeper level of understanding or whatever

there is literally no point in dealing away young assets and future picks right now when we don't have any semblance of a championship team on the roster currently... those guys need to be developed and they need minutes in order to develop... we're not one piece away or two... we still have essentially dead salary...

First off Phuck U! I didn't just spout off cliche BS as you're doing. I highlighted points from the article that use REAL WORLD examples to make a point. We all should value Picks. They have the most value BEFORE the Draft or if you are lucky enough to draft an IMPACT player. Obviously MOST picks don't fall into the Impact player category.

As for dealing a Pick for Kyrie there's a VERY LOW chance that we draft a kid as good or better than Kyrie. Just the nature of the Lottery alone makes it difficult. Then you have to WAIT YEARS for that 2018 and 2019 pick to develop enough to be an impact player. Kyrie is there now and together with KP, THJ and Willy you would have a great chance of reaching the 50 Win level and sooner than waiting on yet undrafted players to develop.

first off, stop being a child... telling me what I'm missing or whatever when I don't agree wiht you

second off, I'm sorry I don't believe trading the farm for someone who is 25 is a magic cure for the team

third off, I hope I get a chance to meet you one day internet tough guy

You don't wanna meet me! At least not in the way you're suggesting. Just remember YOU dissed me first even tho I didn't mention your name or say anything disrespectful to you. You could've made your point without the personal dig at me!

You still haven't actually made a case against what the article is pointing to. This isn't to say going slow and building thru the draft is wrong. The point is that making use of future picks isn't necessarily this bad idea so many think it is. Each scenario is different but in this case the Knicks already started to make moves for a more immediate development path by signing THJ who is 25 just like Kyrie. They did draft Nitty but have older prospects like Baker and Dotson.

Doing this makes better use of KP's early years at the same time still having enough youth for an extended run.

lmao

Well thought out response. Great contribution to the thread.

+1

nixluva wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:We've got to acknowledge that Picks in and of themselves aren't guarantees. They're assets of HOPE and you can never really know what they'll turn into except for when you trade them in GOOD DEALS. The Knicks have made bad use of their picks in the past. In this case the team has a Franchise Stud in KP and some really good young players in development. They can CASH IN a couple of picks for a proven player like Kyrie who at 25 fits with KP at 22. The concept of 25 or younger isn't just about Future Draft Picks.

The article pointed out the top players on 50 win teams and really you won't find any 19, 20 or 21 yr old players. Knicks are right to be interested in a player like Kyrie to go along with KP and THJ in particular.

Do we have to be a 50 win team by the time KP is 25? If we win 44, he's going to take a paycut to leave? He's not even good enough right now for me to obsess over losing him (though hopefully he will be eventually).

I guarantee that waiting on two more 19 yr olds over the next 2 years this team will NOT be a 50 win team. That's the general point being made in the article. The Knicks can accelerate the process greatly with adding a young stud like Kyrie by cashing in on the picks.

Why do we need to be a 50 win team in 2 years? I highly doubt Kyrie has that kind of impact any way but I don't even agree with the premise that we must win 50 games by next year.

It's not that they reach 50 wins next year! The point is that 22 yr old Nitty, 21 yr old 2018 pick and 20 yr old 2019 pick won't be ready to help 25 yr old KP win 50. The development process is MUCH LONGER waiting for those picks to reach impact level.

What's magical about KP turning 25? He's going to take a paycut to play somewhere because we only won 47 games? I'd argue that if we overpay for Kyrie, it's actually going to take much longer to get to 50 wins anyway.

what's magical is nix's deeper level of understanding or whatever

there is literally no point in dealing away young assets and future picks right now when we don't have any semblance of a championship team on the roster currently... those guys need to be developed and they need minutes in order to develop... we're not one piece away or two... we still have essentially dead salary...

First off Phuck U! I didn't just spout off cliche BS as you're doing. I highlighted points from the article that use REAL WORLD examples to make a point. We all should value Picks. They have the most value BEFORE the Draft or if you are lucky enough to draft an IMPACT player. Obviously MOST picks don't fall into the Impact player category.

As for dealing a Pick for Kyrie there's a VERY LOW chance that we draft a kid as good or better than Kyrie. Just the nature of the Lottery alone makes it difficult. Then you have to WAIT YEARS for that 2018 and 2019 pick to develop enough to be an impact player. Kyrie is there now and together with KP, THJ and Willy you would have a great chance of reaching the 50 Win level and sooner than waiting on yet undrafted players to develop.

nixluva wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

nixluva wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:We've got to acknowledge that Picks in and of themselves aren't guarantees. They're assets of HOPE and you can never really know what they'll turn into except for when you trade them in GOOD DEALS. The Knicks have made bad use of their picks in the past. In this case the team has a Franchise Stud in KP and some really good young players in development. They can CASH IN a couple of picks for a proven player like Kyrie who at 25 fits with KP at 22. The concept of 25 or younger isn't just about Future Draft Picks.

The article pointed out the top players on 50 win teams and really you won't find any 19, 20 or 21 yr old players. Knicks are right to be interested in a player like Kyrie to go along with KP and THJ in particular.

Do we have to be a 50 win team by the time KP is 25? If we win 44, he's going to take a paycut to leave? He's not even good enough right now for me to obsess over losing him (though hopefully he will be eventually).

I guarantee that waiting on two more 19 yr olds over the next 2 years this team will NOT be a 50 win team. That's the general point being made in the article. The Knicks can accelerate the process greatly with adding a young stud like Kyrie by cashing in on the picks.

Those 2 19 yr olds sold separately could get you something of quality back as well as allow you to maintain many other pieces you have. If the Knicks pulled off the Melo trade and got back Harkless and freed up another 15 mil in cap space. At the draft next year they could package their top 8 lotto pick, Harkless & Lee/Lance and land a stud without having to give up future picks or other core pieces(Tobias Harris would be ideal). With the 15mil in cap space they could trade Willy(just an example) straight up for another proven stud.

Just one of the many many options the Knicks could have if they stood pat for a year or 2. Stay patient, collect assets and cherry pick smart quality trades of these assets for quality veterans to add to the young team. PGs like Conley, Lowry, Dragic, Bledsoe will all eventually become available as these teams look to retool rebuild. Maybe Frank is more of a SG and we could trade Hardaway for a PG preserving the cap space to add a 3rd player.

Good points! the value of future picks can be very useful in trades which is the point of this thread. If you're using them you hope to land a player of the caliber and upside of a Kyrie. His age and experience in the playoffs makes him a valuable get IMO. Yes there are serious questions about Kyrie's game that have to be considered when viewing him as a foundational piece. Can he lead a team or is he just a high usage scorer? Will he step up his defense to at least respectable levels. He's physically capable of doing that.

I don't see any of those older PG's being Knicks targets in 2 yrs. I don't think the Knicks are really looking to trade Nitty. My guess is they'd part with Willy before Nitty, tho I'm hoping they keep both.

But there is big difference in trading multiple picks and prospects for a Kyrie given what the Knicks have to work with. We would then be putting way to much pressure on Kyrie and KP to become superstars. Put way to much pressure on JH to win immediately. Put ourselves in a disadvantage for future trades as we would become desperate to redeem ourselves that we didn't trade all those assets for poor results. Sure it could work out and they become Kobe & KG pairing. But that wouldn't be smart management to depend on that.

Yet by collecting assets and cherry picking trades. Knicks would deal from positions of strength every time. Possibly even land bargain trades for quality players.

All I did was name some of the countless options the Knicks could take if they don't blow their load on Kyrie. Willy might be viewed as a lottery pick value by the end of this coming season and could be sold separately for high value alone. Our draft pick may be a lottery pick and could be sold separately for high value alone. Knicks could possibly get 2 veteran impact players directly from only those 2 assets if they wanted, if they waited a year. Or maybe Willy and that lotto pick are actually players worth keeping on their own and we could move a future draft pick or 2 with Lee & KOQ/Lance for a stud veteran and still fall back on all the other assets the Knicks would have.

If you could get Dragic or Lowry in 2 yrs for future draft pick and Lee or Noah's expiring to add to Frank, Hardaway, KP, Willy, 2018 draft, pick 2019, Baker, Dotson, Harkless? Then why not. Knicks could also package that 2019 draft pick with a Noah or Harkless or Hardaway jr depending on the player and possibly land another veteran stud at the SF position. Random name say Batum to go along with a Dragic or Lowry. To go along with all the young talent already on the roster. We would be deeper talented yet still young team with veteran leadership, still have all our picks going forward except one and maybe even have that covered in the Melo deal.

y2zipper wrote:The case for trading picks is that basketball picks are more like baseball picks now where teams get a great prospect that isn't complete and nobody knows for years who the great players will be in any given draft.

The case against it is that the draft is the only access point to what is essentially underpaid talent, which is necessary to win in the salary cap/max salary NBA. The handful of true game changers also doesn't move.

Where I sit on this fence is the middle. Teams have to know when they're going for it and when they're not. Like, it makes sense for Houston to move picks and assets to get Chris Paul because he's a good enough player to warrant it and Houston's cap situation was okay for them to do it.

With Irving, it's a little trickier because while Irving is young and talented, he isn't the level of player that is going to move the needle significantly for the Knicks. Yeah, he'd make them better, but Irving/Porzingis probably isn't a championship core as both are not-quite franchise players and the Knicks don't really have cap space with Hardaway and Noah on the books.

In the event they could get Irving, they would have to change strategies from waiting out cap space and developing some players to using assets with the purpose of clearing a spot for a good player to join Porzingis and Irving on the team. This is why they can't trade a bunch of picks to get him right now.

Welpee wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

nixluva wrote:https://theknickswall.com/the-case-for-trading-draft-picks-480425dd66f3

I really like this writer Jeffrey Bellone of The Knicks Wall.

This is a detailed article with charts so I suggest going to read it but here's an excerpt:

The Knicks have a franchise player in Kristaps Porzingis. They need to be careful not to waste his prime playing years by avoiding trades for star talent at the cost of draft picks.
>Snip<
It seems the common thread among Knicks fans is woven with the idea that building a competitive team around Porzingis should be done by using future draft picks. Porzingis is only 21 years old (he’ll be 22 by the start of next season), the team is coming off a 31-win campaign, and Carmelo Anthony is presumably moving on to greener pastures. The team is not built to win now, so why acquire veteran pieces? Draft more young studs and let them develop alongside Porzingis, and together, they will become a future contender.

This logic is correct, until you start doing the math. The Knicks don’t have the luxury to wait for future draft picks to develop into elite talent to play with Porzingis. The clock is ticking. It takes a really long time for 18 year olds to become top players on contending teams, if they become top players at all.

There are eight teams that won at least 50 games last season. Looking at the three best players on each of those teams (using Value Over Replacement Player — VORP), none of the 24 players observed were younger than 24 years old last season. Each team had at least one of their star players in the thick of their prime (age 28):

>Chart<

If we project the Knicks roster ahead to 2020–21, when Kristaps would be 25 years old (and a potential free agent), and if we assume the Knicks keep Frank Ntilikina along with their 2018 and 2019 draft picks, we find a team that would have Porzingis and a trio of 20, 21, and 22 year olds. In other words, it is unlikely that any of the Knicks 2017, 2018, or 2019 draft picks would be ready to perform at a contending level by the time Porzingis is entering his prime-age seasons (age 25 and up).

When Kristaps Porzingis is ready to compete for a championship between the ages of 25–30, the Knicks’ future draft picks would still be in their developmental years until the tail end of that window.

The Knicks could speed up the process by trying to acquire a player like Kyrie Irving. The 25-year-old guard is already in his prime, with an upward trend fully possible. While his contract will be more expensive over the next two seasons than a rookie, his production will be far superior. Remember, rookies are cheap, but they start to get expensive (through qualifying offers and restricted free agency) around the time they are finally ready to compete at a championship level.

FiveThirtyEight projects the production of players over a five-year window. The Knicks fell to the eighth overall pick in the most recent draft, so let’s use a slightly higher pick to articulate the point. The fifth overall selection, De’Aaron Fox, projects to produce -0.3 wins above a replacement level player next season. Kyrie Irving projects to produce 5.6 wins. It is not until the 2022 season, five years from now, when Fox reaches his potential of about three wins per season. His ceiling never projects to be as high as Irving’s:

I agree and this is why I wanted to trade Kristaps. If we could of got 4 lottery picks in 2 years we could build the core peaking together at the right time

Or you could end up with Zach Collins, Luke Kennard, Taurean Prince and Jamal Murray. I don't think anybody would view that crop of lottery picks are the core of a future championship team.

Well that wouldnt of happened because I wouldnt of traded him unless we got a top 5 pick in the 2017 draft plus we had the 8th pick none of those guys were picked before 8

Bonn1997 wrote:

y2zipper wrote:The case for trading picks is that basketball picks are more like baseball picks now where teams get a great prospect that isn't complete and nobody knows for years who the great players will be in any given draft.

The case against it is that the draft is the only access point to what is essentially underpaid talent, which is necessary to win in the salary cap/max salary NBA. The handful of true game changers also doesn't move.

Where I sit on this fence is the middle. Teams have to know when they're going for it and when they're not. Like, it makes sense for Houston to move picks and assets to get Chris Paul because he's a good enough player to warrant it and Houston's cap situation was okay for them to do it.

With Irving, it's a little trickier because while Irving is young and talented, he isn't the level of player that is going to move the needle significantly for the Knicks. Yeah, he'd make them better, but Irving/Porzingis probably isn't a championship core as both are not-quite franchise players and the Knicks don't really have cap space with Hardaway and Noah on the books.

In the event they could get Irving, they would have to change strategies from waiting out cap space and developing some players to using assets with the purpose of clearing a spot for a good player to join Porzingis and Irving on the team. This is why they can't trade a bunch of picks to get him right now.

I agree about not moving the needle a lot. I think if you have a 41 win team with an averaging starting PG and replace that guy with Kyrie you probably now have a 44 or 45 win team.

If you put curry on this roster, you get the same results as Irving, Plus.... Irving and THJ would be a sad nightmare on the defensive side. You would need some defense first players around them like rose had in chicago

knicks1248 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

y2zipper wrote:The case for trading picks is that basketball picks are more like baseball picks now where teams get a great prospect that isn't complete and nobody knows for years who the great players will be in any given draft.

The case against it is that the draft is the only access point to what is essentially underpaid talent, which is necessary to win in the salary cap/max salary NBA. The handful of true game changers also doesn't move.

Where I sit on this fence is the middle. Teams have to know when they're going for it and when they're not. Like, it makes sense for Houston to move picks and assets to get Chris Paul because he's a good enough player to warrant it and Houston's cap situation was okay for them to do it.

With Irving, it's a little trickier because while Irving is young and talented, he isn't the level of player that is going to move the needle significantly for the Knicks. Yeah, he'd make them better, but Irving/Porzingis probably isn't a championship core as both are not-quite franchise players and the Knicks don't really have cap space with Hardaway and Noah on the books.

In the event they could get Irving, they would have to change strategies from waiting out cap space and developing some players to using assets with the purpose of clearing a spot for a good player to join Porzingis and Irving on the team. This is why they can't trade a bunch of picks to get him right now.

I agree about not moving the needle a lot. I think if you have a 41 win team with an averaging starting PG and replace that guy with Kyrie you probably now have a 44 or 45 win team.

If you put curry on this roster, you get the same results as Irving, Plus.... Irving and THJ would be a sad nightmare on the defensive side. You would need some defense first players around them like rose had in chicago

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

y2zipper wrote:The case for trading picks is that basketball picks are more like baseball picks now where teams get a great prospect that isn't complete and nobody knows for years who the great players will be in any given draft.

The case against it is that the draft is the only access point to what is essentially underpaid talent, which is necessary to win in the salary cap/max salary NBA. The handful of true game changers also doesn't move.

Where I sit on this fence is the middle. Teams have to know when they're going for it and when they're not. Like, it makes sense for Houston to move picks and assets to get Chris Paul because he's a good enough player to warrant it and Houston's cap situation was okay for them to do it.

With Irving, it's a little trickier because while Irving is young and talented, he isn't the level of player that is going to move the needle significantly for the Knicks. Yeah, he'd make them better, but Irving/Porzingis probably isn't a championship core as both are not-quite franchise players and the Knicks don't really have cap space with Hardaway and Noah on the books.

In the event they could get Irving, they would have to change strategies from waiting out cap space and developing some players to using assets with the purpose of clearing a spot for a good player to join Porzingis and Irving on the team. This is why they can't trade a bunch of picks to get him right now.

I agree about not moving the needle a lot. I think if you have a 41 win team with an averaging starting PG and replace that guy with Kyrie you probably now have a 44 or 45 win team.

If you put curry on this roster, you get the same results as Irving, Plus.... Irving and THJ would be a sad nightmare on the defensive side. You would need some defense first players around them like rose had in chicago

Their effects on the team would not be remotely similar. Curry is somewhere between a billion and a trillion times better than Kyrie. I'm not saying Irving is a bad player. He's just going to cost too much. It's quite rare to trade for a star and get a good deal. You have to spot players before they become stars like the Rockets did with Harden or trade for a player when his trade value plummets (Butler) not when the guy is coming off finals appearances and has a high trade value. You want to trade for stars? Fine but you don't buy high. Whether you're looking for a star, a role player, draft picks, or anything else, you've gotta buy low. We missed our chance to add a star at a reasonable cost this summer (Butler).

We didn't have enough to offer for Butler unless we traded KP.

knicks1248 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

y2zipper wrote:The case for trading picks is that basketball picks are more like baseball picks now where teams get a great prospect that isn't complete and nobody knows for years who the great players will be in any given draft.

The case against it is that the draft is the only access point to what is essentially underpaid talent, which is necessary to win in the salary cap/max salary NBA. The handful of true game changers also doesn't move.

Where I sit on this fence is the middle. Teams have to know when they're going for it and when they're not. Like, it makes sense for Houston to move picks and assets to get Chris Paul because he's a good enough player to warrant it and Houston's cap situation was okay for them to do it.

With Irving, it's a little trickier because while Irving is young and talented, he isn't the level of player that is going to move the needle significantly for the Knicks. Yeah, he'd make them better, but Irving/Porzingis probably isn't a championship core as both are not-quite franchise players and the Knicks don't really have cap space with Hardaway and Noah on the books.

In the event they could get Irving, they would have to change strategies from waiting out cap space and developing some players to using assets with the purpose of clearing a spot for a good player to join Porzingis and Irving on the team. This is why they can't trade a bunch of picks to get him right now.

I agree about not moving the needle a lot. I think if you have a 41 win team with an averaging starting PG and replace that guy with Kyrie you probably now have a 44 or 45 win team.

If you put curry on this roster, you get the same results as Irving, Plus.... Irving and THJ would be a sad nightmare on the defensive side. You would need some defense first players around them like rose had in chicago

Their effects on the team would not be remotely similar. Curry is somewhere between a billion and a trillion times better than Kyrie. I'm not saying Irving is a bad player. He's just going to cost too much. It's quite rare to trade for a star and get a good deal. You have to spot players before they become stars like the Rockets did with Harden or trade for a player when his trade value plummets (Butler) not when the guy is coming off finals appearances and has a high trade value. You want to trade for stars? Fine but you don't buy high. Whether you're looking for a star, a role player, draft picks, or anything else, you've gotta buy low. We missed our chance to add a star at a reasonable cost this summer (Butler).

We didn't have enough to offer for Butler unless we traded KP.

Did you see how little Chicago got for him? How could we not be able to beat that? I bet if we gave up pick 8 and insisted on a future top 20 protected pick instead of this year's top 16 back, that would have been good enough. Or 2 2nd round picks. There would be other options too. We have assets that are more appealing than what Chicago got and don't involve trading KP. And Butler is better on both ends of the court than Kyrie even though he's less flashy.
I'm not even saying I wanted to go that direction. That's just if we wanted to add a star and get better right away.

We have to add a star, there isn't and question about it.

Thats why I think this melo to Houston trade is suck in position, there's no rising star in any package, no expiring contracts, and no current star, and the drafts pick are suspect.

The market for marquee players ain't like what it use to be